linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/cpu: proc - remove "wp" status line in cpuinfo

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: <CA+rthh-PxoaPaUO80g8tqfUwZoKVCPjguCScioW5H_UqKGu_iw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:47:08 +0100
From:   Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>,
        Mikael Starvik <starvik@...s.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/cpu: proc - remove "wp" status line in cpuinfo

On 14 February 2017 at 17:20, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:12:09PM +0100, Mathias Krause wrote:
>> As of commit a5c2a893dbd4 ("x86, 386 removal: Remove
>> CONFIG_X86_WP_WORKS_OK") the kernel won't boot if CR0.WP isn't working
>> correctly. This makes a process reading this file always see "wp : yes"
>> here -- otherwise there would be no process to begin with ;)
>>
>> As this status line in /proc/cpuinfo serves no purpose for quite some
>> time now, get rid of it.
>
> Right, sure, except /proc/cpuinfo's format is kind of an ABI and scripts
> rely on it, I'm being told.

That's the reason I haven't folded this change into patch 2. I had
similar doubts but it's not documented in Documentation/ and kinda
useless to test anyway -- what would a "wp : no" tell one?

> TBH, I'd remove that wp:-line too but this
> is just me. tip guys' call.
>
> FWIW, for all three:
>
> Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>

Thanks,
Mathias