From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <eduval@amazon.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>,
Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@iaik.tugraz.at>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"David H . Gutteridge" <dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/pti: Move user W+X check into pti_finalize()
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:26:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180809112635.5nafpey7c2nowir7@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jK-wd=wbXcqoaogThVF1gHvH+UXgvVtsFuV2efjo8K46g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Kees,
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:33:01PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I'm slightly nervous about complicating this and splitting up the
> check. I have a mild preference that all the checks get moved later,
> so that all architectures have the checks happening at the same time
> during boot. Splitting this up could give us some weird differences
> between architectures, etc.
As fas as I can see the checks are implemented on x86, arm, and arm64. I
agree that it would be better to run the checks at a unified place
across architectures and can send a patch-set for set once the dust
around the 32-bit PTI implementation for x86 has settled.
But currently the call-places are architecture specific and with that in
mind the split-up on x86 is the right thing to do. I'll change that back
when I implement your idea above.
Regards,
Joerg
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-09 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-08 11:16 Joerg Roedel
2018-08-08 15:54 ` Dave Hansen
2018-08-09 11:16 ` Joerg Roedel
2018-08-08 20:33 ` Kees Cook
2018-08-09 11:26 ` Joerg Roedel [this message]
2018-08-17 2:42 ` David H. Gutteridge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180809112635.5nafpey7c2nowir7@suse.de \
--to=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=aliguori@amazon.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.gruss@iaik.tugraz.at \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dhgutteridge@sympatico.ca \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=eduval@amazon.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox