Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:54:22 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] x86/arch_prctl: add ARCH_GET_NOPTI and
 ARCH_SET_NOPTI to enable/disable PTI
Message-ID: <20180109145422.GD12976@1wt.eu>
References: <1515502580-12261-1-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu>
 <1515502580-12261-3-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu>
 <20180109141713.ngqrf6weyiy2q3in@pd.tnic>
 <20180109143653.GA12976@1wt.eu>
 <20180109145157.5ltqbz4o5sqkcggb@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180109145157.5ltqbz4o5sqkcggb@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:51:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:36:53PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I see and am not particularly against this, but what use case do you
> > have in mind precisely ? I doubt it's just saving a few tens of bytes,
> > so probably you're more concerned about the potential risks this opens ?
> > But given we only allow this for CAP_SYS_RAWIO and these ones already
> > have access to /dev/mem and many other things, don't you think there
> > are much easier ways to dump kernel memory in this case than trying to
> > inject some meltdown code into the victim process ? Or maybe you have
> > other cases in mind that I'm not seeing.
> 
> I'd like this to be config-controllable so that distros can make the
> decision whether/if they want to support the whole per-mm thing.

OK.

> Also, if CAP_SYS_RAWIO is going to protect, please make the
> ARCH_GET_NOPTI variant check it too.

Interestingly I removed the check consecutive to the discussions. But
I think I'll simply remove the whole ARCH_GET_NOPTI as it has no real
value beyond initial development.

Willy