Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/pti: Do not enable PTI on processors which are
 not vulnerable to Meltdown
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        karahmed@amazon.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, bp@alien8.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linux-foundation.org,
        gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
References: <1516813025-10794-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <1516813025-10794-6-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <1516968886.19619.7.camel@debian.org>
 <bb85a9bb-4c00-f8f7-13f6-3f1bed997e9c@intel.com>
From:   Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <a48513ed-eba8-daa1-d79f-9a023ae1fc0b@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:30:15 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bb85a9bb-4c00-f8f7-13f6-3f1bed997e9c@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 1/26/2018 7:27 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 01/26/2018 04:14 AM, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>> I know we'll still be able to manually enable PTI with a command line option,
>> but it's also a hardening feature which has the nice side effect of emulating
>> SMEP on CPU which don't support it (e.g the Atom boxes above).
> 
> For Meltdown-vulnerable systems, it's a no brainer: pti=on.  The
> vulnerability there is just too much.
> 
> But, if we are going to change the default, IMNHO, we need a clear list
> of what SMEP emulation mitigates and where.  RSB-related Variant 2 stuff
> on Atom where the kernel speculatively 'ret's back to userspace is
> certainly a concern.  But, there's a lot of other RSB stuffing that's
> going on that will mitigate that too.
> 
> Were you thinking of anything concrete?

not Atom though. Atom has has SMEP for a very long time, at least the ones
that do speculation do afaict.

SMEP is for other bugs (dud kernel function pointer) and for that,
emulating SMEP is an interesting opt-in for sure.