Re: [PATCH] x86: Let AS_WRUSS depend on X86_64

[Jiri Slaby]

On 31. 10. 23, 14:53, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/31/23 03:21, Jiri Slaby (SUSE) wrote:
> ...
> > Provided the wruss instruction is 64-bit only (and used in pure 64-bit
> > X86_USER_SHADOW_STACK), it has little sense to have AS_WRUSS=y set on
> > 32-bit.
> >
> > Therefore, make the whole test dependent on X86_64 to ensure it's set
> > only on 64-bit.
> ...
> >   config AS_WRUSS
> >   	def_bool $(as-instr,wrussq %rax$(comma)(%rbx))
> > +	depends on X86_64
> >   	help
> >   	  Supported by binutils >= 2.31 and LLVM integrated assembler
>
> What's the downside to just leaving this alone?
>
> This patch just seems wrong logically.  Suppose some deranged person
> wanted 32-bit shadow stack support.  They'd have to go hunt this down
> via trial and error instead of just enabling X86_USER_SHADOW_STACK.

All wrussq, rax, rbx can never be right on 32-bit anyway...

> Granted, that would take one crazy person five minutes to figure out why
> their .config is broken, but it still seems wrong.  It's especially
> wrong without a comment because it logically reads something along the
> lines of "WRUSS is only available on x86_64 configs".

Which is right, or what am I missing?

> A better way to do this would be:
>
> config HAS_SHADOW_STACKS
> 	depends on X86_64
>
> config AS_WRUSS
> 	...
> 	# Avoid setting AS_WRUSS on configs that don't need it:
> 	depends on HAS_SHADOW_STACKS
>
> config X86_USER_SHADOW_STACK
>          bool "X86 userspace shadow stack"
>          depends on AS_WRUSS
>          depends on HAS_SHADOW_STACKS
>
> But that honestly doesn't seem worth it because (circling back to the
> first thing I wrote...) I don't really know what the benefit is to doing
> this in the first place.

Again, to avoid nonsense in 32bit configs produced by oldconfig (as I 
noted in the commit log).

thanks,
--
js
suse labs