From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751728AbdKHRJk (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:09:40 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34136 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751350AbdKHRJi (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/umip: Add emulation code for UMIP instructions To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Peter Anvin , Borislav Petkov , Vlastimil Babka , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Josh Poimboeuf , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , Jonathan Corbet , "Ravi V. Shankar" , ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com, Chris Metcalf , Andrew Morton , Paul Gortmaker , Masami Hiramatsu , Andrew Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , ray.huang@amd.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Chen Yucong , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Slaby , Shuah Khan , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" References: <1509935277-22138-8-git-send-email-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <3cdde8ac-500c-ddad-5ea5-a733e2c98d84@redhat.com> From: Denys Vlasenko Message-ID: <68c11f7a-cd26-0fdc-0ac5-939a72c22227@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:09:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:09:38 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/08/2017 05:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> We can postpone enabling UMIP by default by a year or so. >> By this time, new Wine will be on majority of users' machines. > > So you are suggesting we run unnecessarily insecure, only in order to > not do the emulation that we already have the code for and that the > patch implements? We ran insecure in this way for ~25 years. > Why? To avoid having to maintain more obscure, rarely executed code.