linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] x86: Supervisor Mode Access Prevention

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5060C7E8.2060500@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:51:52 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
CC:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	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>,
	Linda Wang <lwang@...hat.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] x86: Supervisor Mode Access Prevention

On 09/24/2012 01:43 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> How about this...
> 
> mem protection  : nx smap smep
> 
> Maybe the "why" of a cpu feature being missing from the "mem
> protection" line can stay in printk?
> 

Come to think about it, since we use setup_set/clear_cpu_cap we aready
don't list the feature in /proc/cpuinfo already if it isn't enabled.

I would therefore suggest that we simply printk a message if the feature
is disabled.

	-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/