linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] SRSO fixes/cleanups

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: <20230826155742.2hqirzpouzh5pduf@treble>
Date:   Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:57:42 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, David.Kaplan@....com,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/23] SRSO fixes/cleanups

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:38:53PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Thank you, this all looks very nice. I've applied your fixes to
> tip:x86/bugs, with the exception of the two KVM enablement patches.
> 
> I've also cherry-picked the apply_returns() fix separately to x86/urgent,
> AFAICS that's the only super-urgent fix we want to push to the final v6.5
> release before the weekend, right? The other fixes look like
> reporting bugs, Kconfig oddities and inefficiencies at worst. Backporters
> may still pick the rest from x86/bugs too - but we are too close to the
> release right now.

As far as I can tell, the apply_returns() fix isn't necessarily urgent,
since after commit 095b8303f383 it went from being an actual bug to just
dead code: the optimization will never take effect now that none of the
rethunk cases use __x86_return_thunk.

On the other hand, if I'm too late sending this, it should be harmless
to merge it into the final v6.5 release.

For the rest of the patches, I think the merge window is fine.

Thanks!

-- 
Josh