(I'm not subscribed to the list, so this message looks like a normal reply,
but it isn't. I didn't try to hack up an In-Reply-To: header...)
On Dec 1 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>> I would suggest you drop the patch; openssl has been long fixed, an
On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Alan wrote:
So I think people have blown those SSL timing attacks _way_ out of
proportion, just because it sounds technical and cool.
Besides, most of the time you can disable HT in the BIOS, which is
better
anyway if you don't want it.
Agreed - but the SSL thin
> So I think people have blown those SSL timing attacks _way_ out of
> proportion, just because it sounds technical and cool.
>
> Besides, most of the time you can disable HT in the BIOS, which is better
> anyway if you don't want it.
Agreed - but the SSL thing is an irrelevance. The main reas
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> I would suggest you drop the patch; openssl has been long fixed, and it
> was only a theoretical attack in the first place...
> I'm not saying the attack isn't something that should be addressed.. but
> it is, and disabling hyperthreading is not th
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:10 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > I'm just basing this on the history of the patch, which preceeds me, so
> > if this is incorrect, please don't blame me for misinformation :)
> >
> > The original patch claims that hyper-threading opens the user up to some
> > sort of
> I'm just basing this on the history of the patch, which preceeds me, so
> if this is incorrect, please don't blame me for misinformation :)
>
> The original patch claims that hyper-threading opens the user up to some
> sort of security risk involving hardware limitations in protecting
> memory
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:32 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > The idea is that we want our users to be able to use hyper-threading,
> > but we don't want it on by default.
>
> Hi,
>
> can I ask why not?
I'm just basing this on the history of the patch, which preceeds me, so
if this is inco
>
> The idea is that we want our users to be able to use hyper-threading,
> but we don't want it on by default.
Hi,
can I ask why not?
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:29 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > This patch adds a config option to allow disabling hyper-threading by
> > default, and a kernel command line option to changes this default at
> > boot time.
>
> > +config X86_HT_DISABLE
> > + bool "Disable Hyper-Threading by de
Hi!
> This patch adds a config option to allow disabling hyper-threading by
> default, and a kernel command line option to changes this default at
> boot time.
> +config X86_HT_DISABLE
> + bool "Disable Hyper-Threading by default"
> + depends on X86_HT
> + default n
> +
Command line
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 11:06:11AM +, Alan wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:26:05 -0500
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch adds a config option to allow disabling hyper-threading by
> > default, and a kernel command line option to changes this default at
> > boot time.
>
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:26:05 -0500
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch adds a config option to allow disabling hyper-threading by
> default, and a kernel command line option to changes this default at
> boot time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The description
This patch adds a config option to allow disabling hyper-threading by
default, and a kernel command line option to changes this default at
boot time.
Signed-off-by: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt |3 +++
arch/i386/Kconfig |5 +
13 matches
Mail list logo
