Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Message-ID: <1dad6a33-1cd0-0d0f-29c5-97fd2807f07a@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 13:46:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: test that userspace stack is in fact NX
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
References: <4b78a714-5ac3-4783-8256-1dda4673db01@p183>
 <1d5223b8-0275-619d-db1c-e2aaaddb173e@intel.com>
 <d468d13c-6c4b-4d8d-8e2d-e4314b4bb1a7@p183>
 <f972d59c-40dd-2a68-ff13-a2658513a25b@intel.com> <ZRxmS/3nr6pDa1+z@gmail.com>
 <ZRxr79i5PAXRXjqr@gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZRxr79i5PAXRXjqr@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/3/23 12:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>> Because not having NX in 2023 on any system that is threatened is a
>> big security vulnerability in itself, and whether the vendor or owner
>> intentionally did that or not doesn't really matter, and a failing
>> kernel testcase will be the least of their problems.
> BTW., it's also questionable whether the owner is *aware* of the fact that 
> NX is not available: what if some kernel debug option cleared the NX flag, 
> unintended, or there's some serious firmware bug?
> 
> However unlikely those situations might be, I think unconditionally warning 
> about NX not available is a very 2023 thing to do.

100% agree for x86_64.  Any sane x86_64 system has NX and the rest are
noise that can live with the error message, unless someone shows up with
a compelling reason why not.

For 32-bit, the situation is reversed.  The majority of 32-bit-only CPUs
never had NX.  The only reason to even *do* this check on 32-bit is that
we think folks are running i386 kernels on x86_64 hardware _or_ we just
don't care about 32-bit in the first place.

In the end, I think if we're going to do this test on i386, we should
_also_ do the 5-lines-of-code CPUID check.  But I honestly don't care
that much.  I wouldn't NAK (or not merge) this patch over it.