netdev - Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access

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]

Date:   Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:24:18 +0000
From:   Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, w@....eu,
        alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, arnd@...db.de,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed
 access_ok

> everyone.  I'm not saying this always happens, but it is reasonable to
> let the iterative pushback see if we can get to better code in this
> case rather than trying to cut it of with the "because *security*"
> argument.
> 

I'm not arguing otherwise - I'd just prefer most users machines are
secure while we have the discussion and while we see what other
architectural tricks people can come up with

Alan