[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3f9db8a8-0be0-fa21-7919-0d89e057f50e@cs.kuleuven.be>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:53:59 -0700
From: Jo Van Bulck <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
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 1/1] x86/pti: Fix kernel warnings for pti= and nopti
cmdline options.
On 11.08.23 17:08, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/11/23 16:58, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> I agree this doesn't have to be this complex. PTI_FORCE_AUTO is unnecessary.
> It's worth *ZERO* hassle. The docs say:
> That's 100% unambiguous.
>
> If you do "mitigations=off pti=auto", you might as well have done
> "pti=auto nopti" which is nonsense.
>
> The kernel shouldn't fall over and die, but the user gets to hold the
> (undefined) pieces at this point.
>
> Please let's not make this more complicated than it has to be.
Thank you both for the suggestions. I agree the code got overly complex
and unnecessary when users are clearly passing conflicting options. So I
prepared another patch iteration to largely revert back to the original
proposed patch, i.e., *without* backwards compatible behavior when pti=
nopti and mitigations=off are erroneously combined.
I'll post the new patch shortly.
Best,
Jo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists