linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Introduce CET supervisor state support

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: <63abbc66-b237-4f7f-8aec-e32ebf6c62bd@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:35:17 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
 "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
 "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
 "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: "ebiggers@...gle.com" <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
 "vigbalas@....com" <vigbalas@....com>,
 "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
 "levymitchell0@...il.com" <levymitchell0@...il.com>,
 "samuel.holland@...ive.com" <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
 "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>, "Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
 "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "mlevitsk@...hat.com" <mlevitsk@...hat.com>,
 "john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
 "Spassov, Stanislav" <stanspas@...zon.de>,
 "attofari@...zon.de" <attofari@...zon.de>,
 "Li, Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
 "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
 "aruna.ramakrishna@...cle.com" <aruna.ramakrishna@...cle.com>,
 "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "Liu, Zhao1" <zhao1.liu@...el.com>,
 "ubizjak@...il.com" <ubizjak@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Introduce CET supervisor state support

On 4/2/25 14:12, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> In any case, at this point I think we need to either double down on polishing
> this thing up (by pausing other work) and have a clear “please do this with
> these patches" request, or declare failure and argue for the smaller version.
> 
> I guess I still lean towards keeping the optimization. But I do think it's worth
> considering at this point.

I'm not quite feeling the same sense of panic and some need to pause
other work. This is thing is at v4. Between spring break and the merge
window, v4 hasn't gotten many eyeballs, except Chang's (thanks Chang!).