linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] aarch64: vdso: Wire up getrandom() vDSO implementation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240902151043.GB11571@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:10:44 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, ardb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] aarch64: vdso: Wire up getrandom() vDSO implementation

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:25:34PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:19:56PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mman.h 
> > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mman.h
> > index 17a77d47ed6d..42a51a993d94 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mman.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mman.h
> > @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
> > 
> >   #include <uapi/asm/mman.h>
> > 
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64) && !defined(BUILD_VDSO)
> > 
> >   #include <asm/cputable.h>
> >   #include <linux/mm.h>
> > 
> > So that the only thing that remains in arch/powerpc/include/asm/mman.h 
> > when building a VDSO is #include <uapi/asm/mman.h>
> > 
> > I got the idea from ARM64, they use something similar in their 
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> 
> That seems reasonable enough. Adhemerval - do you want to incorporate
> this solution for your v+1? And Will, is it okay to keep that as one
> patch, as Christophe has done, rather than splitting it, so the whole
> change is hermetic?

Yup, that makes sense to me (and the lib/vdso/getrandom.c change would go
away entirely).

Will