From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:10:59 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading Message-ID: <20190211191059.GR19618@zn.tnic> References: <20190129003422.9328-1-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <20190129003422.9328-11-rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com> <20190211182956.GN19618@zn.tnic> <1533F2BB-2284-499B-9912-6D74D0B87BC1@gmail.com> <20190211190108.GP19618@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: To: Nadav Amit Cc: Rick Edgecombe , Andy Lutomirski , Ingo Molnar , LKML , X86 ML , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Damian Tometzki , linux-integrity , LSM List , Andrew Morton , Kernel Hardening , Linux-MM , Will Deacon , Ard Biesheuvel , Kristen Carlson Accardi , "Dock, Deneen T" , Kees Cook , Dave Hansen , Masami Hiramatsu List-ID: 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? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.