[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 12:02:13 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Damian Tometzki <linux_dti@...oud.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>, "Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:06 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:53:34AM -0800, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> > If we *do*, what is the issue here? Although boot_cpu_has() isn't
> > slow (it should in general be possible to reduce to one testb
> > instruction followed by a conditional jump) it seems that "avoiding an
> > alternatives slot" *should* be a *very* weak reason, and seems to me
> > to look like papering over some other problem.
>
> Forget the current thread: this is simply trying to document when to use
> static_cpu_has() and when to use boot_cpu_has(). I get asked about it at
> least once a month.
>
> And then it is replacing clear slow paths using static_cpu_has() with
> boot_cpu_has() because there's purely no need to patch there. And having
> a RIP-relative MOV and a JMP is good enough for slow paths.
>
Should we maybe rename these functions? static_cpu_has() is at least
reasonably obvious. But cpu_feature_enabled() is different for
reasons I've never understood, and boot_cpu_has() is IMO terribly
named. It's not about the boot cpu -- it's about doing the same thing
but with less bloat and less performance.
(And can we maybe collapse cpu_feature_enabled() and static_cpu_has()
into the same function?)
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
