linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/mm/pae: Align up pteval_t, pmdval_t and pudval

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: <7db8d0a8-c668-44be-a348-58120a97fc2b@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:58:31 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Javier Pello <devel@...eo.eu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/mm/pae: Align up pteval_t, pmdval_t and pudval_t
 to avoid split locks

On 4/3/24 08:54, Javier Pello wrote:
> - The third way would be to disable split lock detection on x86-32.
> This can be as simple as setting the default to "none" in
> sld_state_setup(). Not the most elegant of solutions, but beats
> having unresponsive tasks.
> 
> Would going for the first one be worth the trouble?

No, it's not worth it.  Let's just disable split lock detection on
32-bit and move on with life.