[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXv5_g1VEWY9yEnbSihiCxBJYENCJDmitFJ66ihPwO5eNzLog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 11:20:33 -0400
From: David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 00/13] HARDENED_ATOMIC
Done. I added a line to the "HARDENED_ATOMIC Implementation" section
of Documentation/security/hardened-atomic.txt describing the results
of the benchmarks (no measurable performance difference). You might
want to add this line to the cover letter as well.
I know I promised to post the results of another set of benchmarks I
performed, and I will do that soon.
Thanks,
David
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Reshetova, Elena
<elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:
>>> - add missing tests for atomic64 and local
>>> - rebase on top of latest linux-next
>>> - compile test and test run the whole thing in different combinations
>>> - send rfcv3 with also all atomic maintainers included for wider
>>> blame/feedback
>>>
>>> Does it sound like a good plan for everyone?
>>>
>
>> Actually, it doesn't look like I've updated Documentation/security/hardened-atomic.txt yet. I need to fix the language explaining the x86 race condition to make it clear that we're discussing the SMP case.
>> I also want to add a sentence somewhere (either in your cover letter or in the kernel documentation, or both), referencing the benchmark results and lack of demonstrable performance degradation.
>
> David, could you please push the changes you want to do to the documentation in separate commit to the top of hardened_atomic_on_next?
> I will cherry pick them to our new rebased branch hardened_atomic_next that we still working actively now.
>
> Best Regards,
> Elena.
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.
