Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

10.03.2017 05:41, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Ricardo Neri
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 19:53 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>> 08.03.2017 19:46, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>> No no, since I meant prot mode, this is not what I need.
>>>>> I would never need to disable UMIP as to allow the
>>>>> prot mode apps to do SLDT. Instead it would be good
>>>>> to have an ability to provide a replacement for the dummy
>>>>> emulation that is currently being proposed for kernel.
>>>>> All is needed for this, is just to deliver a SIGSEGV.
>>>> That's what I meant.  Turning off FIXUP_UMIP would leave UMIP on but
>>>> turn off the fixup, so you'd get a SIGSEGV indicating #GP (or a vm86
>>>> GP exit).
>>> But then I am confused with the word "compat" in
>>> your "COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP" and
>>> "sys_adjust_compat_mask(int op, int word, u32 mask);"
>>>
>>> Leaving UMIP on and only disabling a fixup doesn't
>>> sound like a compat option to me. I would expect
>>> compat to disable it completely.
>> I guess that the _UMIP_FIXUP part makes it clear that emulation, not
>> UMIP is disabled, allowing the SIGSEGV be delivered to the user space
>> program.
>>
>> Would having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP to disable emulation and a
>> COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP make sense?
>>
>> Also, wouldn't having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP defeat its
>> purpose? Applications could simply use this compat mask to bypass UMIP
>> and gain access to the instructions it protects.
>>
> I was obviously extremely unclear.  The point of the proposed syscall
> is to let programs opt out of legacy features.
I guess both "compat" and "legacy" are misleading
here. Maybe these are "x86-specific" or "hypervisor-specific",
but a mere enabling of UMIP doesn't immediately make
the use of SLDT instruction a legacy IMHO.

>   I'll ponder this a bit more.
So if we are to invent something new, it would be nice to
also think up a clear terminology for it. Maybe something
like "X86_FEATURE_xxx_MASK" or alike.