Re: [PATCH v4] [x86] detect and report lack of NX protections

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 11/10/2009 02:15 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 01:22:18PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> Yes, it should be.  set_nx() and check_efer() are doing the same thing,
>> except in different ways, and they are - IMO - *both* doing something
>> dumb -- although check_efer() is saner.
> 
> BTW, it seems like set_nx() should move from init_memory_mapping to
> setup_arch, since init_memory_mapping can be called twice, but I don't
> think set_nx needs to be.
> 

We already have call points in setup_arch for check_efer(), which are
where this code needs to be called.

As I said, check_efer() and set_nx() are the 64- and 32-bit versions of
*exactly the same thing*.  Furthermore, it looks to me that set_nx() is
simply broken; it forces the bit set in EFER even though it is already
set in head_32.S.

Thus, what we *should* do is:

a) remove set_nx() completely;
b) enable check_efer() on 32 bits;
c) rename check_efer() to something sane, like x86_configure_nx();

Optionally we should just use cpu_has_nx instead of reading EFER.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/