On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:48:35AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:56:18AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:28:48PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Since there seem to be kernel modules floating around that set > > > FSGSBASE incorrectly, prevent this in the CR4 pinning. Currently > > > CR4 pinning just checks that bits are set, this also checks > > > that the FSGSBASE bit is not set, and if it is clears it again. > > > > So we are trying to "protect" ourselves from broken out-of-tree kernel > > modules now? > > Well it's a specific case where we know they're opening a root hole > unintentionally. This is just an pragmatic attempt to protect the users in the > short term. Can't you just go and fix those out-of-tree kernel modules instead? What's keeping you all from just doing that instead of trying to force the kernel to play traffic cop? thanks, greg k-h
