[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLiGoc+=xDpXRRCNneVOWKezTAz2WxjpwtpTt8LXTVK2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 14:09:12 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>,
Eric Northup <digitaleric@...gle.com>, Julien Tinnes <jln@...gle.com>, Will Drewry <wad@...gle.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>, Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86, kaslr: move CPU flags out of cpucheck
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 12:37 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Refactor the CPU flags handling out of the cpucheck routines so that
>> they can be reused by the future ASLR routines (in order to detect CPU
>> features like RDRAND and RDTSC).
>>
>> This reworks has_eflag() and has_fpu() to be used on both 32-bit and
>> 64-bit, and refactors the calls to cpuid to make them PIC-safe on 32-bit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> Please flag the ones that specifically touch the boot code so that is
> clear. Neither the title or the description makes that at all clear,
> and at first reading is fairly confusing as a result.
Yes, good point. Patch 1/7 should be named "x86, boot: ..."
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
