linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/coco: Define cc_vendor without CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC

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: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 20:07:29 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
	morbo@...gle.com, justinstitt@...gle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev,
	patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/coco: Define cc_vendor without
 CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM

On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 09:08:06AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> I have no issues with blaming a9ef277488cf but I think da86eb961184 is
> equally blamable for removing the option to use cc_vendor in generic x86
> code where CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CC_PLATFORM may not be set. Hopefully that at
> least carifies the "which is it?" question, I'll do whatever you think
> is best.

I guess I wasn't clear enough, sorry about that. Of the two, that one
should be in Fixes which is the first one which causes the build issue
so that the fix can be backported to the respective kernels.

IOW, if you can't trigger with da86eb961184, then a9ef277488cf should be
in Fixes and your fix should go through the KVM tree, along with
a9ef277488cf.

How does that sound?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette