[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170727135709.GD28553@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:57:09 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
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>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.org>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-msdos@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 24/26] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:44:08PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 18:10 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:22AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > > User_mode Instruction Prevention (UMIP) is enabled by setting/clearing a
> > > bit in %cr4.
> > >
> > > It makes sense to enable UMIP at some point while booting, before user
> > > spaces come up. Like SMAP and SMEP, is not critical to have it enabled
> > > very early during boot. This is because UMIP is relevant only when there is
> > > a userspace to be protected from. Given the similarities in relevance, it
> > > makes sense to enable UMIP along with SMAP and SMEP.
> > >
> > > UMIP is enabled by default. It can be disabled by adding clearcpuid=514
> > > to the kernel parameters.
...
> So would this become a y when more machines have UMIP?
I guess. Stuff which proves reliable and widespread gets automatically
enabled with time, in most cases. IMHO, of course.
> Why would static_cpu_has() reply wrong if alternatives are not in place?
> Because it uses the boot CPU data? When it calls _static_cpu_has() it
> would do something equivalent to
Nevermind - I forgot that static_cpu_has() now drops to dynamic check
before alternatives application.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists