[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3996E3F9-92D2-4561-84E9-68B43AC60F43@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:27:03 -0800
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: 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>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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 Feb 11, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:09:25AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> It is just that I find the use of static_cpu_has()/boot_cpu_has() to be very
>> inconsistent. I doubt that show_cpuinfo_misc(), copy_fpstate_to_sigframe(),
>> or i915_memcpy_init_early() that use static_cpu_has() are any hotter than
>> text_poke_early().
>
> Would some beefing of the comment over it help?
Is there any comment over static_cpu_has()? ;-)
Anyhow, obviously a comment would be useful.
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.
