From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752021AbdKHROa (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:14:30 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46644 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751674AbdKHRO2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:14:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/umip: Add emulation code for UMIP instructions To: Denys Vlasenko , Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Anvin , Borislav Petkov , Vlastimil Babka , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Josh Poimboeuf , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , Jonathan Corbet , "Ravi V. Shankar" , ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com, Chris Metcalf , Andrew Morton , Paul Gortmaker , Masami Hiramatsu , Andrew Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , ray.huang@amd.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Chen Yucong , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Slaby , Shuah Khan , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" References: <1509935277-22138-8-git-send-email-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> <3cdde8ac-500c-ddad-5ea5-a733e2c98d84@redhat.com> <68c11f7a-cd26-0fdc-0ac5-939a72c22227@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 18:14:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <68c11f7a-cd26-0fdc-0ac5-939a72c22227@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Wed, 08 Nov 2017 17:14:28 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/11/2017 18:09, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On 11/08/2017 05:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Denys Vlasenko >> wrote: >>> We can postpone enabling UMIP by default by a year or so. >>> By this time, new Wine will be on majority of users' machines. >> >> So you are suggesting we run unnecessarily insecure, only in order to >> not do the emulation that we already have the code for and that the >> patch implements? > > We ran insecure in this way for ~25 years. > >> Why? > > To avoid having to maintain more obscure, rarely executed code. As a start, you could propose a patch to disable the emulation code through a sysctl or Kconfig symbol. I would be surprised if it takes more time than what you've spent writing emails in this thread. Paolo