linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: work around MPX Erratum

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: <20160503211202.GA27604@pd.tnic>
Date:	Tue, 3 May 2016 23:12:03 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: work around MPX Erratum

On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 02:04:40PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> My concern was not necessarily with folks booting with 'nosmep', but

Btw, does anything speak for even keeping that 'nosmep' thing?

> with processors that have MPX present and SMEP fused off (or made
> unavailable by a hypervisor) and which are unaffected by this issue.

So we won't init MPX on those...

> People would have to be very careful to never create a processor which
> did not have SMEP but did have MPX, since MPX would effectively be
> unusable on such a processor.

We can disable that combination in qemu too, right?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.