kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] x86: remove the syscall

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180128092914.dabnzq7arv4bebhn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:29:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/12] x86: remove the syscall_64 fast-path


* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:

> Quoting Linus:
> 
>   "Honestly, I'd rather get rid of the fast-path entirely. Compared to
>    all the PTI mess, it's not even noticeable.
> 
>    And if we ever get CPU's that have this all fixed, we can re-visit
>    introducing the fastpath. But this is all very messy and it doesn't
>    seem worth it right now.
> 
>    If we get rid of the fastpath, we can lay out the slow path slightly
>    better, and get rid of some of those jump-overs. And we'd get rid of
>    the ptregs hooks entirely.
> 
>    So we can try to make the "slow" path better while at it, but I
>    really don't think it matters much now in the post-PTI era. Sadly."

Please fix the title to have the proper prefix and to reference the function that 
is actually modified by the patch, i.e. something like:

s/ x86: remove the syscall_64 fast-path
 / x86/entry/64: Remove the entry_SYSCALL_64() fast-path

With the title fixed:

Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

Thanks,

	Ingo

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.