[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160225081044.GA11372@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:10:44 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>, lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] x86/boot: enumerate documentation for the x86
hardware_subarch
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2016 12:33 AM, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > For hard coded platform quirks I'd suggest we add x86_platform.quirks flags. For
> > example the F00F hack for Xen could be done via:
> >
> > x86_platform.quirks.idt_remap = 0;
> >
>
> Don't we unconditionally remap the IDT? I think Kees did it for
> general purpose hardening due to our complete inability to hide the
> IDT address. I.e. I think we can remove the f00f condition entirely.
Yeah, indeed - I only judged by the (limited) patch context and assumed the Xen
problem was with IDT remapping.
But what the quirk really does is only to avoid printing the f00f workaround -
i.e. a cosmetic change. I think we should just drop the paravirt_enabled() check.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists