On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 09:39 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> -
>> static void __cpuinit intel_smp_check(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> {
>> /* calling is from identify_secondary_cpu() ? */
>> @@ -206,8 +192,7 @@ static void __cpuinit
On 04/09/2013 09:39 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> -
> static void __cpuinit intel_smp_check(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> /* calling is from identify_secondary_cpu() ? */
> @@ -206,8 +192,7 @@ static void __cpuinit intel_workarounds(struct
> cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> /*
>* All current
Make a copy of the IDT (as seen via the "sidt" instruction) read-only.
This primarily removes the IDT from being a target for arbitrary memory
write attacks, and has the added benefit of also not leaking the kernel
base offset, if it has been relocated.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
Cc: Eric Northup
Make a copy of the IDT (as seen via the sidt instruction) read-only.
This primarily removes the IDT from being a target for arbitrary memory
write attacks, and has the added benefit of also not leaking the kernel
base offset, if it has been relocated.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook
On 04/09/2013 09:39 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
-
static void __cpuinit intel_smp_check(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
/* calling is from identify_secondary_cpu() ? */
@@ -206,8 +192,7 @@ static void __cpuinit intel_workarounds(struct
cpuinfo_x86 *c)
/*
* All current models of
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:14 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
On 04/09/2013 09:39 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
-
static void __cpuinit intel_smp_check(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
/* calling is from identify_secondary_cpu() ? */
@@ -206,8 +192,7 @@ static void __cpuinit
6 matches
Mail list logo