Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755566AbXFUHiW (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:38:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753128AbXFUHiP (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:38:15 -0400 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.183]:4077 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751103AbXFUHiO (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:38:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=CECs59rYB5Yn0vjAozCDhKPbnY3EUe7LPEFyCkoXP27wZgRABzy6MeFEWP3C5ClZV1699hzEivz2/sWV8pONGL+fIVXfaaY6IlWKslGBJ2IzUMm4uR9D6WjCkQtCdKmdfQ6nydYuciejye9F+5lA/psC7GN50ZJBoB0+OrVByVw= Message-ID: <787b0d920706210038t11f1e327hb5e295f7ce5a84a2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:38:13 -0400 From: "Albert Cahalan" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: JIT emulator needs Cc: "William Lee Irwin III" , linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <4679F14F.9050008@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <787b0d920706072335v10d6025cwe1437194b6c60d84@mail.gmail.com> <20070619150824.GH11781@holomorphy.com> <787b0d920706192016l660dd5b0mbf300581db81ac62@mail.gmail.com> <20070620160116.GI6909@holomorphy.com> <467957CB.8020704@zytor.com> <787b0d920706201125g2368a4e1i2d115b0b2d5399e5@mail.gmail.com> <46797747.9020904@zytor.com> <787b0d920706202021t567b2fefu869a03ef76f245da@mail.gmail.com> <4679F14F.9050008@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 900 Lines: 21 On 6/20/07, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Albert Cahalan wrote: > > Look, let's back up a bit here. At a high level, what exactly do > > you imagine that this behavior was intended for? I suggest you > > list some examples of the attacks that are blocked. > > > > Can you come up with a reasonable argument that the current behavior > > is the least painful restriction required to block those attacks? > > Does the current behavior block any attack that the proposed behavior > > would not? (list the attacks please) > > See above. Nope. I asked you to justify the existing behavior. Apparently you are unable to do so. This should be a hint. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/