linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 10/13] x86/uintr: Introduce user IPI sender syscalls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 07:27:13 -0700
From:   Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     <x86@...nel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Gayatri Kammela" <gayatri.kammela@...el.com>,
        Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
        "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Randy E Witt <randy.e.witt@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Ramesh Thomas <ramesh.thomas@...el.com>,
        <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/13] x86/uintr: Introduce user IPI sender syscalls

On 9/29/2021 12:04 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:01:54AM -0700, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>>
>> Is this reasonable or would you still prefer a pointer?
> Ok, just document it really well that this is NOT a real address used by
> the kernel.  As it is, that's not obvious at all.


Thanks. I'll do that.

>
> And if this crosses the user/kernel boundry, it needs to be __u64 right?


This one doesn't cross the user/kernel boundary. The kernel programs a 
value in this struct for the hardware to consume.

But there might be other places where I have missed that. I'll fix those.

Thanks,
Sohil