On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > So we can more easily see if the shiny got enabled. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> > --- > arch/x86/mm/kaiser.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/kaiser.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/kaiser.c > @@ -425,6 +425,8 @@ void __init kaiser_init(void) > if (!kaiser_enabled) > return; > > + printk("All your KAISER are belong to us\n"); > +
All your incomprehensible academic names are belong to us. On a serious note, can we please banish the name KAISER from all the user-facing bits? No one should be setting a boot option that has a name based on an academic project called "Kernel Address Isolation to have Side-channels Efficiently Removed". We're not efficiently removing side channels. The side channels are still very much there. Heck, the series as currently presented doesn't even rescue kASLR. It could*, if we were to finish the work that I mostly started and completely banish all the normal kernel mappings from the shadow** tables. We're rather inefficiently (and partially!) mitigating the fact that certain CPU designers have had their heads up their collective arses for *years* and have failed to pay attention to numerous academic papers documenting that fact. Let's call the user facing bits "separate user pagetables". If we want to make it conditioned on a future cpu cap called X86_BUG_REALLY_DUMB_SIDE_CHANNELS, great, assuming a better CPU ever shows up. But please let's not make users look up WTF "KAISER" means. * No one ever documented the %*!& side channels AFAIK, so everything we're talking about here is mostly speculation. ** The word "shadow" needs to die, too. I know what shadow page tables are, and they have *nothing* to do with KAISER.
