[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sjaaj3cx.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:41:34 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Linda Wang <lwang@...hat.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] x86: Supervisor Mode Access Prevention
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> On 09/21/2012 03:07 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> Have you tested kexec in this environment?
>>
>> This is the kind of cpu feature that when we enable it, frequently we
>> have to do something on the kexec path.
>>
>> At a quick skim it looks like the kexec path is using kernel page table
>> entries and clearing all bits from cr4 except X86_CR4_PAE so I don't
>> actually expect this change will require anything on the kexec path.
>>
>
> I have not, no, but as you quite correctly point out that shouldn't
> affect things.
>
> We should also change the kernel to start clean with CR4 -- the purpose
> of CR4 is to indicate which CPU features the OS is opting into.
>
> I think we do on x86-64 but not on x86-32 at the moment.
>
> This is an unrelated problem, though, and can be addressed later.
Agreed. I just was just curious where things stood.
Eric
--
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