[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5060C330.1000407@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:31:44 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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
On 09/22/2012 04:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/21/2012 03:08 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps add a printk somewhere to show that it's actually been enabled maybe ?
>>>
>>> Also, would it be feasible to add something like we have for test_nx ?
>>> If this feature regresses in some way in the future, I suspect we'd like
>>> to know about it sooner rather than later.
>>
>> Good idea... should add this both for SMEP and SMAP.
>
> Very much agreed - these exploit preventation hardware features
> are really useful, and it's good to inform the user that they
> are active.
>
I was thinking about this, do you think a printk would be better, or a
new field in /proc/cpuinfo?
-hpa
--
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