linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/boot enhancements for v6.14

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: <Z5erZirOgJVBAJZ9@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 16:51:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/boot enhancements for v6.14

* Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:

> This is another example of a pattern that is simply broken and 
> guaranteed to fail when booting this kernel as a SEV-SNP guest. So I 
> hope we agree that these issues should be detected at build time, and 
> it is only the quality of the diagnostic message that you are 
> objecting to?

And I believe the fact that they are fatal messages is a problem - we 
should initially just emit (informative) warnings.

Note that in the above case 'SEV-SNP guest' is basically support for a 
niche usecase built into the kernel image, and in the vast majority of 
cases the kernel will boot and work just fine. We should not fail the 
build for breakage in a niche usecase, at least initially.

Thanks,

	Ingo