[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180305202535.GX25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 21:25:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v9 2/7] x86/entry: Add STACKLEAK erasing the kernel
stack at the end of syscalls
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 11:43:19AM -0800, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 08:41 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 03/03/2018 12:00 PM, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > > Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt | 2 +
> > > arch/Kconfig | 27 ++++++++++
> > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
> > > arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S | 11 ++++
> >
> > This is a *lot* of assembly. I wonder if you tried at all to get more
> > of this into C or whether you just inherited the assembly from the
> > original code?
> >
>
> This came up previously http://www.openwall.com/lists/kernel-hardening/2017/10/23/5
> there were concerns about trusting C to do the right thing as well as
> speed.
And therefore the answer to this obvious question should've been part of
the Changelog :-)
Dave is last in a long line of people asking this same question.
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.
