linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] x86/sgx: Resolve EAUG race where losing thread returns SIGBUS

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: <20240812082128.3084051-1-dmitrii.kuvaiskii@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 01:21:28 -0700
From: Dmitrii Kuvaiskii <dmitrii.kuvaiskii@...el.com>
To: jarkko@...nel.org
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	dmitrii.kuvaiskii@...el.com,
	haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com,
	kai.huang@...el.com,
	kailun.qin@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
	mona.vij@...el.com,
	mwk@...isiblethingslab.com,
	reinette.chatre@...el.com,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] x86/sgx: Resolve EAUG race where losing thread returns SIGBUS

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 01:38:37PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

> Fixes should be in the head of the series so please reorder.

Do you mean that the preparation patch [1] should be applied after the two
bug fixes? This seems to not make sense -- isn't it more correct to first
refactor code, and then to fix in a cleaner way? I thought that was the
point of previous Dave Hansen's comments [2].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240705074524.443713-2-dmitrii.kuvaiskii@intel.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1d405428-3847-4862-b146-dd57711c881e@intel.com/

--
Dmitrii Kuvaiskii