linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/bugs: Add SRSO_USER_KERNEL

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: <Z1oTu37PmOvK6OlN@google.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 14:35:39 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, 
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] x86/bugs: Add SRSO_USER_KERNEL_NO support

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Btw, Sean, how should we merge this?
> 
> Should I take it all through tip and give you an immutable branch?

Hmm, that should work.  I don't anticipate any conflicts other than patch 2
(Advertise SRSO_USER_KERNEL_NO to userspace), which is amusingly the most trivial
patch.

Patch 2 is going to conflict with the CPUID/cpu_caps rework[*], but the conflict
won't be hard to resolve, and I'm pretty sure that if I merge in your branch after
applying the rework, the merge commit will show an "obviously correct" resolution.
Or if I screw it up, an obviously wrong resolution :-)

Alternatively, take 1, 3, and 4 through tip, and 2 through my tree, but that
seems unnecessarily convoluted.

[*] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241128013424.4096668-40-seanjc@google.com