linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/15] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z7nCRFh5L9x40X5L@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 13:25:40 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/15] x86-64: Stack protector and percpu improvements


* Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 8:26 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 6:47 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for doing this series - it all looks pretty good from my
> > > > > > side and I've applied it experimentally to tip:x86/asm. I fixed up
> > > > > > the trivial details other reviewers and me noticed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note that the merge is tentative, it might still need a rebase if
> > > > > > some fundamental problem comes up - but let's see how testing goes
> > > > > > in -next.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if there would be any benefit if stack canary is put into
> > > > > struct pcpu_hot?
> > > >
> > > > It should definitely be one of the hottest data structures on x86, so
> > > > moving it there makes sense even if it cannot be measured explicitly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It would have to be done with linker tricks, since you can't make the
> > > compiler use a struct member directly.
> >
> > Probably not worth it then?
> 
> Actually it wasn't so bad since we already had the hack for 
> __ref_stack_chk_guard.  Do you want the patches now or when the dust 
> settles on the original series?

We can add it now I suppose, while memories are fresh and all that.

Thanks,

	Ingo