Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m36-v6csp1921186imm; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPzc6i3fvl4TaZ13FeC46ILhsj0eoR4OlSS4yD/coUHj6SHnptkjOuXDJ3tbd+Lvw9kORh57 X-Received: by 2002:a65:60cd:: with SMTP id r13-v6mr1801228pgv.232.1533814094904; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1533814094; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=FxlmHiZOw02sRBBlU6G2swoMOASX7Bo5JAMGagGMIuzKbbEc7zucrqCawVbb8x4q3s /jzT3xMAVQZKMmDOdihk0dz19+lTr3O2FUNCa0txin2RHof9vv15f9ReJbwIW3mLmcj8 ++82NIRI1jdGybIMuoYBJrqZEB0QQlRZYluw2HnXN92ooUOWOOAnNnTPu/9UT3+8Z6Bg P4gLuPuzpSLyTYT7qSdw2icEIVQ3kqt9Xy9wVwMpQ3WHwdEOUbeL7goq7FGCc24mLlMh kOIyEEcs1ivO7E1ZZvkPBX8kpU2CQFepmcrN/r3okcCL3rV46HO7Eqf0+CGnYkz+SRnP bfOA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=84fG+PZTnh4rqiy24bLmSWcvwTiO4UwdSof2uod9Luw=; b=GpG1nLf+saynVfAFvK2xrzZ3PmysKg+XUNCLgTvJiZenbIfeWUFscSjCTLCkjFOmrE FadtIe1Y9j50y08roZbbk++NAKpRFJ5tWkoAHZeV2Tdk9oZ6jMOWLU6fNpchENgt0+Q3 RDUVjh7xjiFUGbNJLhip+joLUj3aWH/PY6mXrWoQCbaBcjR8EsCPVvWFK1AzhMjVkRs7 ZkIAaaBI74cD/6WaKG2u/2uWeyuF2YojgqfcSAnR/+eKF4DtrElB/qj9ihXdAcmFyXgf J86VSzFDFqtFzTl/tRKF0a6eZGO8FWoh0Gvr3uws8MVggiCurD6nnzhFX+QGuCYF3KZ7 fq2Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t2-v6si6010686pgs.142.2018.08.09.04.28.00; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730936AbeHINvF (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:51:05 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35696 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730707AbeHINvF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 09:51:05 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4672AEC9; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:26:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 13:26:35 +0200 From: Joerg Roedel To: Kees Cook Cc: Joerg Roedel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" , X86 ML , LKML , Linux-MM , Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , Josh Poimboeuf , Juergen Gross , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , Jiri Kosina , Boris Ostrovsky , Brian Gerst , David Laight , Denys Vlasenko , Eduardo Valentin , Greg KH , Will Deacon , Anthony Liguori , Daniel Gruss , Hugh Dickins , Andrea Arcangeli , Waiman Long , Pavel Machek , "David H . Gutteridge" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/pti: Move user W+X check into pti_finalize() Message-ID: <20180809112635.5nafpey7c2nowir7@suse.de> References: <1533727000-9172-1-git-send-email-joro@8bytes.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Kees, On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:33:01PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > I'm slightly nervous about complicating this and splitting up the > check. I have a mild preference that all the checks get moved later, > so that all architectures have the checks happening at the same time > during boot. Splitting this up could give us some weird differences > between architectures, etc. As fas as I can see the checks are implemented on x86, arm, and arm64. I agree that it would be better to run the checks at a unified place across architectures and can send a patch-set for set once the dust around the 32-bit PTI implementation for x86 has settled. But currently the call-places are architecture specific and with that in mind the split-up on x86 is the right thing to do. I'll change that back when I implement your idea above. Regards, Joerg