linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 20/35] x86/bugs: Define attack vectors

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: <20250103155154.GFZ3gHmkzkQytZPI5C@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:51:54 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/35] x86/bugs: Define attack vectors

On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 03:29:03PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> The concept of attack vectors are generic (like how mitigations=off is
> generic), while the bugs involved are arch-specific.  Other architectures
> support speculative mitigations too (for many of the same bugs), but I'm not
> enough of an expert in those architectures personally to implement/document
> attack vector controls for them.  It shouldn't be too hard though for
> someone who knows them better.
> 
> Imo, keeping them in generic code is more forward-looking and prevents the
> next developer from having to move them back here once another architecture
> implements them.  But I can move them to bugs.c if that is the preference...

Right, the intent is for other arches to move them themselves *only* when they
wanna use them. Otherwise, this could remain in generic code and if other arches
don't, then it'll be at the wrong place.

So I'd like for them to do that explicitly and not someone else to start the
work with the hope that others will take it up.

And this is the usual process anyway when other arches want to reuse x86 code
- stuff gets moved to arch-agnostic place first and then shared.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette