linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] x86/cpufeatures: Automatically generate required and disabled feature masks

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: <1BD9B089-9500-4956-9FE3-DAE75B2127B9@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:30:46 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Xin Li <xin@...or.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        x86@...nel.org, will@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        yury.norov@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, acme@...nel.org,
        namhyung@...nel.org, brgerst@...il.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] x86/cpufeatures: Automatically generate required and disabled feature masks

On February 25, 2025 10:15:51 AM PST, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:10:03AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Yeah we had that debate back and forth. Although I personally feel that any
>> sensible build host would have or be able to have Perl, the consensus
>> opinion seems to be that if it can be done with POSIX standard tools or
>> host-side C it should be unless there is a very strong justification to the
>> contrary. 
>
>Right, Xin, please make sure you put this rationale in the commit message so
>that people can read it.
>
>> I guess at some point that will add host-side Rust, which will be fun since
>> that adds the whole Rust user space runtime.
>
>There's that too. And that'll be even more fun. I can't wait for the
>compiler-specific workarounds. We're having a lot of fun with two C compilers
>already but who says we can't have more?!
>
>/facepalm.
>

Yeah. See the thread on this topic, where it seems that the Rust language people haven't even figured out basic things like their aliasing model yet...