Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:55:43 +0100 | From | Joerg Roedel <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] PTI support for x86-32 |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:59:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes, I'm very happy to see that this is actually not nearly as bad as > I feared it might be,
Yeah, I was looking at the original PTI patches and my impression was that a lot of the complicated stuff (like setting up the cpu_entry_area) was already in there for 32 bit too. So it was mostly about the entry code and some changes to the 32bit page-table code.
> Some of those #ifdef's in the PTI code you added might want more > commentary about what the exact differences are. And maybe they could > be done more cleanly with some abstraction. But nothing looked > _horrible_.
I'll add more comments and better abstraction, Dave has already suggested some improvements here. Reading some of my comments again, they need a rework anyway.
> .. and please run all the segment and syscall selfchecks that Andy has written.
Didn't know about them yet, thanks. I will run them too in my testing
> Xen PV and PTI don't work together even on x86-64 afaik, the Xen > people apparently felt it wasn't worth it. See the > > if (hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_XEN_PV)) { > pti_print_if_insecure("disabled on XEN PV."); > return; > } > > in pti_check_boottime_disable().
But I might have broken something for them anyway, honestly I didn't pay much attention to the XEN_PV case as I was trying to get it running here. My hope is that someone who knows Xen better than I do will help out :)
Regards,
Joerg
| |