linux-kernel - Re: [RFT PATCH v3 00/21] x86: strict separation of startup code

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: <20250514172130.GAaCTRGoRL3nYieIE7@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 19:21:30 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Dionna Amalie Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
	Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFT PATCH v3 00/21] x86: strict separation of startup code

On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 09:08:35PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> This is somewhat intrusive, as there are many data objects that are
> referenced both by startup code and by ordinary code, and an alias needs
> to be emitted for each of those. If startup code references anything
> that has not been made available to it explicitly, a build time link
> error will occur.

Makes me wonder: what will be our rule for what should be made available to
startup code, what should be moved to startup code etc....

I guess as less as possible but past experience teaches us differently.
I guess applying the usual skeptical approach should be sane enough...

We'll see.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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