Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200918192312.25978-1-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com> <20200918192312.25978-2-yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
 <ce2524cc-081b-aec9-177a-11c7431cb20d@infradead.org> <20200918205933.GB4304@duo.ucw.cz>
 <CAMe9rOo0+SBPtN7yb8_-h0dRAoOXkad8wi9d-EiWAfgFSedXjQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200918212403.GE4304@duo.ucw.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20200918212403.GE4304@duo.ucw.cz>
From:   "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Sep 2020 14:36:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOrO_Yat4VbeqDvs8UsjOhEtCiDW0pLY-kQkK8yND_iO_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/8] x86/cet/ibt: Add Kconfig option for user-mode
 Indirect Branch Tracking
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:24 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > > > > +   help
> > > > > +     Indirect Branch Tracking (IBT) provides protection against
> > > > > +     CALL-/JMP-oriented programming attacks.  It is active when
> > > > > +     the kernel has this feature enabled, and the processor and
> > > > > +     the application support it.  When this feature is enabled,
> > > > > +     legacy non-IBT applications continue to work, but without
> > > > > +     IBT protection.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +     If unsure, say y
> > > >
> > > >         If unsure, say y.
> > >
> > > Actually, it would be "If unsure, say Y.", to be consistent with the
> > > rest of the Kconfig.
> > >
> > > But I wonder if Yes by default is good idea. Only very new CPUs will
> > > support this, right? Are they even available at the market? Should the
> > > help text say "if your CPU is Whatever Lake or newer, ...." :-) ?
> > >
> >
> > CET enabled kernel runs on all x86-64 processors.  All my machines
> > are running the same CET enabled kernel binary.
>
> I believe that.
>
> But enabling CET in kernel is useless on Core 2 Duo machine, right?
>

This is very important for CET kernel to run on Core 2 Duo machine.
Otherwise, a distro needs to provide 2 kernel binaries, one for CET
CPU and one for non-CET CPU.


-- 
H.J.