linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] KVM: arm64: Share all userspace hardened thread data with the hypervisor

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: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:20:36 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] KVM: arm64: Share all userspace hardened thread
 data with the hypervisor

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:53:33PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > Sure, those patches are still in flight though.  It does seem reasonable
> > to target the current code.

> Sure, if your intent is for this code not to be merged.

> Because it means this series assumes a different data life cycle, and
> the review effort spent on it will be invalidated once you move to the
> per-CPU state.

I don't have any visibility on when those patches are likely to get
merged or the general practices with in flight serieses here, last time
around with some of the serieses that were in flight it was quite late
which did make it unclear if things would go in during that release
cycle at all.

The amount of churn in KVM recently and long periods where the relevant
patches are apparently pre accepted but for various not always clear
reasons not actually merged is making it quite hard to target, you're
obviously going to be a lot more in the loop so this is doubtless
clearer to you than to me.  It's also been a little unclear what the
expectations are for basing things on - some people do prefer to do
their own merging for example, and while you have mentioned your in
flight serieses your communication style means that it's not been
entirely clear if you're just noting the overlap.  Is it just that
refactoring series you want taking into account here or are there other
in flight serieses that should be rolled into a base?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)