[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ce0185e8-4f5c-cff5-4e17-b967f133bc91@cs.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:20:33 -0700
From: Jo Van Bulck <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/pti: Fix kernel warnings for pti= and nopti
cmdline options.
On 11.08.23 12:13, Sohil Mehta wrote:> Based on above, even when you
split the if check only a single print
> would be enough, right?
Yes, I agree these both cases can simply print "disabled on command
line." (as in the original code) IMHO
> I don't believe that is a requirement either. Sometimes kernel command
> lines can get very long and people make mistakes. I just thought it is
> neat that the current code is defaulting that way and we should probably
> keep the same behavior since it makes sense.
Makes sense indeed.
> I agree, in both cases pti= overriding the other option (nopti or
> mitigations=off) sounds reasonable to me.
I prepared a revised patch for this and will post this shortly.
Best,
Jo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists