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

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 08:47:23AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/10/2009 07:49 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> The second clause can only get executed if CONFIG_X86_PAE is unset,
> >> which in turn means _PAGE_NX == 0... so that piece of code is meaningless.
> > 
> > CONFIG_X86_PAE is unset for x86_64, where _PAGE_NX is valid.  (This was
> > the main situation I was trying to address.)  So that chunk runs for
> > non-pae 32bit, and all 64bit:
> > 
> 
> In reality, X86_PAE really should have been defined for 64 bits, since
> 64 bits really is PAE in most aspects.
> 
> Anyway, for the 64-bit case it looks like the proper place for any of
> this is in check_efer() just below, not in this null routine.

64-bit does not set nx_enabled to "1" by default anywhere.  And setting
the default to 1 in check_efer() seemed out of place to me.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
--
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/