[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEXv5_g4xSAX3U7hXhAObWuwWDvy4WnuCR55QH_JhgqJcVvFgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 07:48:00 -0400
From: David Windsor <dave@...gbits.org>
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
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Reshetova, Elena
<elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Oh, one more thing. David you were planning to change a bit the wording on the racing issue in the documentation. Could you please still do it? Would be great to fix that before sending next rfc.
>
Ah yes, I forgot about this, sorry! I just updated the language in
Documentation/security/hardened-atomic.txt to include a line
indicating that the x86 race is only reachable in SMP conditions.
I push --force'd the change to hardened_atomic_next.
> @everyone: Now I finally cleaned up and repo and deleted all unneeded branches. The main working branch is *hardened_atomic_next* now (based on linux-next stable branch)
>
> 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.
