[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37d0b84c-f6ca-15cb-8d78-b6b5a9496da7@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:45:11 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] x86/mm: check exec permissions on fault
On 10/25/21 9:19 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> That was my first version, but I was concerned that perhaps there is
> some strange scenario in which both X86_PF_WRITE and X86_PF_INSN can
> be set. That is the reason that Peter asked you whether this is
> something that might happen.
>
> If you confirm they cannot be both set, I would the version you just
> mentioned.
I'm pretty sure they can't be set together on any sane hardware. A
bonkers hypervisor or CPU could do it of course, but they'd be crazy.
BTW, feel free to add a WARN_ON_ONCE() if WRITE and INSN are both set.
That would be a nice place to talk about the assumption.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists