Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934380AbeAJPpT (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:45:19 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f196.google.com ([209.85.128.196]:36915 "EHLO mail-wr0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932166AbeAJPpS (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:45:18 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov5oJ0KkumDCR+9JXqMnrDwX0rqRERWpi50cbc8CcJ4vhElvg5Mv4R0rcAUUv/bIcWUM1WoHg== Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:45:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Willy Tarreau , LKML , X86 ML , Brian Gerst , Dave Hansen , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Josh Poimboeuf , "H. Peter Anvin" , Kees Cook Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] x86/arch_prctl: add ARCH_GET_NOPTI and ARCH_SET_NOPTI to enable/disable PTI Message-ID: <20180110154514.gkunmmabkn6v2fph@gmail.com> 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> <20180109145422.GD12976@1wt.eu> <20180109212940.ffvqb6wmehmxre4i@pd.tnic> <20180110072508.rhrhnwktbl7g5oxm@gmail.com> <20180110144506.mh7kvqnjyk5b4dvx@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180110144506.mh7kvqnjyk5b4dvx@pd.tnic> 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: * Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 08:25:08AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > We could taint the kernel and warn prominently in the syslog when PTI is disabled > > globally on the boot line though, if running on affected CPUs. > > > > Something like: > > > > "x86/intel: Page Table Isolation (PTI) is disabled globally. This allows unprivileged, untrusted code to exploit the Meltdown CPU bug to read kernel data." > > > > I think we should warn in the per-mm disabling case too. Not the same > text but a similar blurb about the trusted process becoming a high-value > target. Ok - that's fine by me too, as long as it's a one time warning only. Thanks, Ingo