From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752184AbeAJUUO (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:20:14 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:39310 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752043AbeAJUUM (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:20:12 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,341,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="19076526" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 6/8] x86/pti: don't mark the user PGD with _PAGE_NX. To: Willy Tarreau , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org References: <1515612500-14505-1-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> <1515612500-14505-7-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Josh Poimboeuf , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Woodhouse , Kees Cook From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:20:05 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1515612500-14505-7-git-send-email-w@1wt.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On 01/10/2018 11:28 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Since we're going to keep running on the same PGD when returning to > userspace for certain performance-critical tasks, we'll need the user > pages to be executable. So this code disables the extra protection > that was added consisting in marking user pages _PAGE_NX so that this > pgd remains usable for userspace. If you are going to keep pushing this patch, or anything like it, the least you can do is to describe the downsides. Describe the SMEP-like semantics that PTI gives you and describe how this shoots them in the head for the entire process. Also describe the reason PTI put this mechanism in place, and how this shoots _that_ in the head for the entire process. Granted, you have an RFC on this, but please, for the love of everything that is good the world, please stop sending this patch set until you have a halfway reasonable method of dealing with NX that doesn't involve #ifdefs. Please.