linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/split_lock: Make split lock mitigation sleep duration configurable

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: <20251031110535.GAaQSX_0CG8MPlieEv@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 12:05:35 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Fushuai Wang <wangfushuai@...du.com>
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, davydov-max@...dex-team.ru,
	gpiccoli@...lia.com, hpa@...or.com, jani.nikula@...el.com,
	joel.granados@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	x86@...nel.org, xin@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/split_lock: Make split lock mitigation sleep
 duration configurable

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 10:46:31AM +0800, Fushuai Wang wrote:
> I think there are two main reasons for making the split lock mitigation
> sleep duration configurable:

IOW, you want to disable split lock.

What's the point otherwise?

Apparently you want to do some sort of a solution for a cloud environment but
you can't make everyone happy.

So you either allow split locks or you slow down offenders. Making this
configurable doesn't make a whole lotta sense to me unless you write a proper,
concrete use case which justifies this and not some AI-generated bla.

If not, you can just as well keep this in your kernels and use it there.

I do not see the point of adding this in the upstream kernel.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

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