linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/cpufeature: Add User-Mode Instruction Prevention definitions

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]

Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:09:43 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Ravi V . Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/cpufeature: Add User-Mode Instruction Prevention
 definitions

On 11/09/2016 07:24 PM, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 03:02 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
...
>> > What I mean is: why does this need a config option at all?
> I intended this feature to be configurable at build time in case someone
> wants to build a kernel without it; similar to other features such as
> SMAP. Is this not needed? Should Linux be built with this feature always
> enabled?

I think marking these features with their own CONFIG's is a really good
idea.  It helps the tinification effort.  It's also nice for folks that
might want to turn all the Intel features off because they're running on
AMD or something.

We don't necessarily need prompts for *everything*, but I can't imagine
just slapping the code in without #ifdefs of any kind.