linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "riscv/efistub: Ensure GP-relative addressing is not used"

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: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 14:46:34 +0100
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, palmer@...belt.com, 
	aou@...s.berkeley.edu, xuzhipeng.1973@...edance.com, alexghiti@...osinc.com, 
	samitolvanen@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de, xiao.w.wang@...el.com, 
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, nathan@...nel.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 1/3] Revert "riscv/efistub: Ensure
 GP-relative addressing is not used"

On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 14:27, yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 9:11 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 at 14:08, yunhui cui <cuiyunhui@...edance.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:52 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...menscom> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 06.03.24 09:56, Yunhui Cui wrote:
> > > > > This reverts commit afb2a4fb84555ef9e61061f6ea63ed7087b295d5.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This comes without a reason - which is likely something around "will fix
> > > > this properly later". But then you regress first and only fix
> > > > afterwards. Can't that be done the other way around?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you help explain it
> > > more clearly? Do you mean "delete mno-relax instead of revert
> > > directly?"
> > >
> >
> > You should order your patches in a way that does not create
> > intermediate states (between 1-2 or between 2-3) where the original
> > problem is being recreated.
> >
> > So in this case, you should
> > a) fix the issue
> > b) revert the existing patches in *opposite* order
> Simply, I plan to remove "-mno-relax" and
> "\|R_RISCV_$(BITS)\|R_RISCV_RELAX" in the third patch (fix patch).
>

Why is that better than the current approach?