linux-kernel - RE: [RESEND PATCH 2/6] x86/traps: add a system interrupt table for system interrupt dispatch

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Nov 2022 03:03:22 +0000
From:   "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
        "llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: RE: [RESEND PATCH 2/6] x86/traps: add a system interrupt table for
 system interrupt dispatch

> > > Well, the entire point of the warning that you are disabling here is
> > > to catch potential CFI failures at compile time, rather than run
> > > time :)
> >
> > Oh, of course I didn't intend to be opposed to CFI.
> 
> Oh, I apologize if I gave the impression that you were, I did not mean to put
> words in your mouth! I was just giving additional context as to why we have
> that warning enable and how we use it to help catch potential run time failures
> at compile time, which does not require running CFI to keep CFI happy.

No, I don't feel impression at all :), maybe just a little bit upset that
I didn't realize it at the beginning.

I actually appreciate you provided additional context into this thread.
Xin