linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/pti: Fix kernel warnings for pti= and nopti cmdline options.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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