[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd5b9bab31ecf247a0b4890e22bfbb486ff52001.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 16:02:33 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 01/26] Documentation/x86: Add CET description
On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 15:53 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/29/20 3:07 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > +Note:
> > + There is no CET-enabling arch_prctl function. By design, CET is enabled
> > + automatically if the binary and the system can support it.
>
> I think Andy and I danced around this last time. Let me try to say it
> more explicitly.
>
> I want CET kernel enabling to able to be disconnected from the on-disk
> binary. I want a binary compiled with CET to be able to disable it, and
> I want a binary not compiled with CET to be able to enable it. I want
> different threads in a process to be able to each have different CET status.
The kernel patches we have now can be modified to support this model. If after
discussion this is favorable, I will modify code accordingly.
> Which JITs was this tested with? I think as a bare minimum we need to
> know that this design can accommodate _a_ modern JIT. It would be
> horrible if the browser javascript engines couldn't use this design, for
> instance.
JIT work is still in progress. When that is available I will test it.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists