[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091110165738.GH5129@outflux.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:57:38 -0800
From: Kees Cook <kees.cook@...onical.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] [x86] detect and report lack of NX protections
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:47:23AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/10/2009 07:49 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> The second clause can only get executed if CONFIG_X86_PAE is unset,
> >> which in turn means _PAGE_NX == 0... so that piece of code is meaningless.
> >
> > CONFIG_X86_PAE is unset for x86_64, where _PAGE_NX is valid. (This was
> > the main situation I was trying to address.) So that chunk runs for
> > non-pae 32bit, and all 64bit:
> >
>
> In reality, X86_PAE really should have been defined for 64 bits, since
> 64 bits really is PAE in most aspects.
>
> Anyway, for the 64-bit case it looks like the proper place for any of
> this is in check_efer() just below, not in this null routine.
64-bit does not set nx_enabled to "1" by default anywhere. And setting
the default to 1 in check_efer() seemed out of place to me.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists