[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71214e64-0546-0767-3543-963329dab9a3@cs.kuleuven.be>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:33:04 -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 1/1] x86/pti: Fix kernel warnings for pti= and nopti
cmdline options.
On 14.08.23 14:12, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> On 8/12/2023 8:54 AM, Jo Van Bulck wrote:
>> arch/x86/mm/pti.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>
> This version is very similar to the original patch and much simpler.
> Sorry about the unnecessary churn.
>
> Apart from the minor nits below,
> Reviewed-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
No problem, thanks for the help!
>
>> + if (cpu_mitigations_off())
>> pti_mode = PTI_FORCE_OFF;
>> + if (pti_mode == PTI_FORCE_OFF) {
>> pti_print_if_insecure("disabled on command line.");
>> return;
>> }
>
> A new line here would be useful.
Added in next revision.
> Was there an issue with the flow you had in the original patch? It was
> avoiding the goto label and flow was a bit more linear.
No, the original flow also works and I agree that an explicit PTI_AUTO
check may indeed be preferable. Reverting this in the next patch iteration.
Best,
Jo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists