[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180112215422.GB16470@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 22:54:22 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] x86/entry/pti: don't switch PGD on when
pti_disable is set
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 01:18:06PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> FWIW, if we take this approach, then either dropping the capability should
> turn PTI back on or we need to deal with the corner case of PTI off and
> capability not present. The latter is a bit awkward but not necessarily a
> show stopper. I think that all we need to do is to update the ptrace rules
> and maybe make PTI turn back on when we execve. At least there's no need to
> muck around with LSM hooks.
That's my point as well, just the same principle as the "NEXT" prctl : only
perform changes on execve(). At least we're sure to deal with something
consistent and it's the right moment for deciding on _PAGE_NX.
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists