Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:26:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] x86/arch_prctl: add ARCH_GET_NOPTI and ARCH_SET_NOPTI
 to enable/disable PTI
In-Reply-To: <20180108171759.qissiwwxyg6m7rrl@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801081824410.1735@nanos>
References: <1515427939-10999-1-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <1515427939-10999-3-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801081757520.1735@nanos> <20180108171759.qissiwwxyg6m7rrl@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > Per task is really an odd choice. That should be per process I think, but
> > that of course needs synchronization of some form. Aside of that we need to
> > think about fork().
> 
> So per task (thread) is the most natural approach to low level asm flaggery.

Well, yes and no. PTI is a property of the mm/pgdir and that's process
wide.
 
> Making it per thread also makes some sense conceptually: in a complex 
> multi-threaded runtime implementation some threads might never execute
> 'untrusted' code, some might. No need to penalize the 'server' threads.

If one thread runs untrusted code then your 'trusted' thread is not longer
trusted either as they share everything.

Thanks,

	tglx