linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading

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: <A55214F3-CDC0-44C4-AFB6-7E8E23CC6F85@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:32:41 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Damian Tometzki <linux_dti@...oud.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules
 loading

> On Feb 11, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:27:03AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Is there any comment over static_cpu_has()? ;-)
> 
> Almost:
> 
> /*
> * Static testing of CPU features.  Used the same as boot_cpu_has().
> * These will statically patch the target code for additional
> * performance.
> */
> static __always_inline __pure bool _static_cpu_has(u16 bit)

Oh, I missed this comment.

BTW: the “__pure” attribute is useless when “__always_inline” is used.
Unless it is intended to be some sort of comment, of course.