linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3a4bf401-0781-492f-a952-3c96c1507551@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:58:23 -0700
From:   Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Jo Van Bulck <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>,
        <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 1/1] x86/pti: Fix kernel warnings for pti= and nopti
 cmdline options.

On 8/11/2023 4:42 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/11/23 16:27, Jo Van Bulck wrote:

>> Not sure which option would best match kernel coding guidelines?
> 
> This sound like it's getting a bit out of hand and reaching far beyond
> cleaning up some (mostly) harmless warnings.
> 

I agree this doesn't have to be this complex. PTI_FORCE_AUTO is unnecessary.

> pti=auto does *not* need to override mitigations=off.

I think only pti=on needs to override mitigations=off i.e. the User is
saying turn off mitigations but keep PTI enabled. This should be fairly
easy to achieve with the current enum. If it is not then it's not worth
the hassle.