lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] x86/pti: add a per-cpu variable pti_disable
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:59:01AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 09:01:02AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...] If we had "pit_enabled", something like this could be confusing because
> > > > it's not obvious whether this pti_enabled *enforces* PTI or if its absence
> > > > disables it :
> > > >
> > > > cmpb $0, PER_CPU_VAR(pti_enabled)
> > > > jz .Lend\@
> > >
> > > The natural sequence would be:
> > >
> > > cmpb $1, PER_CPU_VAR(pti_enabled)
> > > jne .Lend\@
> > >
> > > which is not confusing to me at all.
> >
> > In fact I think I know now why it still poses me a problem : this
> > pti_enabled flag alone is not sufficient to enable PTI, it's just part
> > of the condition, as another part comes from the X86_FEATURE_PTI flag.
> > However, pti_disabled is sufficient to disable PTI so actually its
> > effect matches its name (note BTW that I called it "pti_disable" as a
> > verb indicating an action -- "I want to disable pti", and not as a past
> > form "pti is disabled").
>
> If it's a verb then please name it in the proper order, i.e. 'disable_pti'.
>
> I'm fine with that approach.

OK thanks.

Willy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-14 23:20    [W:0.223 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site