[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWEeBbhGgJ2rVMAQGOK3BUuRSCWzuhmpO=WrmwO85Tnaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:28:05 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
mike.kravetz@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86/cet: Add Kconfig option for user-mode shadow stack
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 9:02 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 08:47 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:40 AM Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Introduce Kconfig option X86_INTEL_SHADOW_STACK_USER.
> > >
> > > An application has shadow stack protection when all the following are
> > > true:
> > >
> > > (1) The kernel has X86_INTEL_SHADOW_STACK_USER enabled,
> > > (2) The running processor supports the shadow stack,
> > > (3) The application is built with shadow stack enabled tools & libs
> > > and, and at runtime, all dependent shared libs can support shadow
> > > stack.
> > >
> > > If this kernel config option is enabled, but (2) or (3) above is not
> > > true, the application runs without the shadow stack protection.
> > > Existing legacy applications will continue to work without the shadow
> > > stack protection.
> > >
> > > The user-mode shadow stack protection is only implemented for the
> > > 64-bit kernel. Thirty-two bit applications are supported under the
> > > compatibility mode.
> > >
> >
> > The 64-bit only part seems entirely reasonable. So please make the
> > code 64-bit only :)
>
> Yes, I will remove changes in "arch/x86/entry/entry32.S".
> We still want to support x32/ia32 in the 64-bit kernel, right?
>
Yes, I think. But that's not in entry_32.S
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists