[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180110172833.srfx257iwwckvkfj@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:28:34 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] x86/arch_prctl: add ARCH_GET_NOPTI and
ARCH_SET_NOPTI to enable/disable PTI
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 05:19:29PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Well, indeed. It will never be 100% equivalent to pti=off however since
> the alternative code will remain in place, but why not. Or maybe we have
> a way to change the alternatives at run time by changing a sysctl,
Not yet. We need to think about it.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists