lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] [x86] detect and report lack of NX protections
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 03:16:16PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/09/2009 02:10 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/setup_nx.c b/arch/x86/mm/setup_nx.c
> > index 513d8ed..1b93231 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/setup_nx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/setup_nx.c
> > @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ void __init set_nx(void)
> > #else
> > void set_nx(void)
> > {
> > + /* notice if _PAGE_NX exists and was removed during check_efer() */
> > + if (_PAGE_NX && ((__supported_pte_mask & _PAGE_NX) == _PAGE_NX))
> > + nx_enabled = 1;
> > }
> > #endif
> >
>
> The second clause can only get executed if CONFIG_X86_PAE is unset,
> which in turn means _PAGE_NX == 0... so that piece of code is meaningless.

CONFIG_X86_PAE is unset for x86_64, where _PAGE_NX is valid. (This was
the main situation I was trying to address.) So that chunk runs for
non-pae 32bit, and all 64bit:

config X86_PAE
bool "PAE (Physical Address Extension) Support"
depends on X86_32 && !HIGHMEM4G

> It also looks to me that there is no message distinguishing the case
> when nx_enabled == 1 but disable_nx == 1, and instead we say NX is
> "active" when in fact it is disabled in the kernel.

That's true -- I had overlooked that part. New patch on the way...

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-10 16:53    [W:0.076 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site