linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/umip: Add a umip= cmdline switch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210913213836.GA10627@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:38:36 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marcus Rückert <mrueckert@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/umip: Add a umip= cmdline switch

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 11:20:59AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:14:59PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > If it is printing the same information again and again, wouldn't it be
> > simpler to have a umip_pr_warn_once()?
> 
> If you do a once thing, you're blocking any other programs from warning,
> output you probably wanna see.

That is right. Although, I am not sure programs you can have in
the same machine that also want to use UMIP-protected instructions.
> 
> With the command line switch you do the same but you're at least pushing
> the user to become active and do it first. I.e., with enabling that
> option, the user basically says that she/he is not interested in any of
> that output and that is ok.
> 
> The optimal thing would be to ratelimit it per process but that would be
> an overkill and not really needed.

Indeed.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo