Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a3970db3-1ded-da2e-84a0-754810c15183@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 21:38:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Disable W^X detection and enforcement on 32-bit
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
References: <20220923221730.1860518-1-dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
 <20220924000954.hhaghgkrb6h33nvq@box.shutemov.name>
 <ca72bdfb-9868-162f-63d5-f778dd03db22@intel.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <ca72bdfb-9868-162f-63d5-f778dd03db22@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/23/22 17:12, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/23/22 17:09, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 03:17:30PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> The 32-bit code is in a weird spot.  Some 32-bit builds (non-PAE) do not
>>> even have NX support.  Even PAE builds that support NX have to contend
>>> with things like EFI data and code mixed in the same pages where W+X
>>> is unavoidable.
>>>
>>> The folks still running X86_32=y kernels are unlikely to care much about
>>> NX.  That combined with the fundamental inability fix _all_ of the W+X
>>> things means this code had little value on X86_32=y.  Disable the checks.
>> Maybe downgrade the check to a warning for X86_32=y?
> 
> But for this EFI case, we really don't want the warning.  It's unfixable.
> 
> I'm also not sure we want to go to the trouble to properly silence the
> warning in these unfixable cases.  There was an argument elsewhere in
> the thread that we really shouldn't be warning on things that we don't
> have full intentions to fix.  I buy that argument.

Yes, there are already way too many such useless warnings around.
Please don't add more of them.

Guenter