Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753858AbeAHR05 (ORCPT + 1 other); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:26:57 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:38756 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753829AbeAHR0w (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:26:52 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou423V9cC3HkhqAq+S5aGBi4xITV/Vc4rHKxTm7j1jkk0bfBfG2mXG2/6VMeJzl37VTg7xOdg== Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:26:48 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Willy Tarreau , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Borislav Petkov , Josh Poimboeuf , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/4] x86/arch_prctl: add ARCH_GET_NOPTI and ARCH_SET_NOPTI to enable/disable PTI Message-ID: <20180108172648.jbjkrj3i2jte4wuk@gmail.com> References: <1515427939-10999-1-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <1515427939-10999-3-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <20180108170531.um2sb5wm6u4dc3rb@gmail.com> <20180108171943.GC6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180108171943.GC6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 06:05:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Note that there is somewhat of a fuzzy detail regarding AMD CPUs which are marked > > as 'Meltdown safe': should an explicit request to turn on PTI be honored by the > > kernel? Should that be some sort of separate 'force PTI on' attribute? > > AMD should not have FEATURE_PTI enabled, and thus not end up in any code > that cares about TIF_NOPTI. I know, this is the status quo. Nevertheless: - if someone disbelieves AMD's claims and wants to force-enable it, should it be possible without patching the kernel? - or if someone wants to test it on AMD to increase test coverage. pti=on will already be force-enable it on AMD CPUs. Likewise, there's the counter part on the app level PTI disabling/enabling ABI functionality as well: - should there be a way for sysadmins to force PTI enabled, even on apps that want to turn it off? - should there be a way for sysadmins to force PTI disabled, even for apps that want to turn it on? If we decide that we want to allow fine-grained, per app control of PTI, then all of these look valid scenarios to me. Thanks, Ingo