[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <295ea2ef-3480-856b-b93a-9ae36f7b2286@cs.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:27:17 -0700
From: Jo Van Bulck <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
sohil.mehta@...el.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/pti: Fix kernel warnings for pti= and nopti
cmdline options.
On 11.08.23 14:36, Jo Van Bulck wrote:> static enum pti_mode {
> PTI_AUTO = 0,
> + PTI_FORCE_AUTO,
> PTI_FORCE_OFF,
> PTI_FORCE_ON
> } pti_mode;
I introduced a new PTI_FORCE_AUTO value here to make pti=auto override
any mitigations=off parameter. However, I realize now that this may
inadvertently affect other functions that test for pti_mode == PTI_AUTO
(eg in pti_kernel_image_global_ok()).
Having 2 constants PTI_AUTO and PTI_FORCE_AUTO is arguably not very
neat, so we should better get rid of this. I see several options:
- not have pti=auto override mitigations=off
- have a global var to indicate pti= argument was passed
- set pti_mode = PTI_AUTO in the pti_mode == PTI_FORCE_AUTO if branch
Not sure which option would best match kernel coding guidelines?
Best,
Jo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists