Hi!
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
index 9871e649ffef..b090787188b4 100644
--- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
+++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
@@ -2764,6 +2764,12 @@
noexec=on: enable non-executable mappings (default)
noexec=off: disable non-executable mappings
+ no_cet_ibt [X86-64] Disable indirect branch tracking for user-mode
+ applications
+
+ no_cet_shstk [X86-64] Disable shadow stack support for user-mode
+ applications
Hmm, not too consistent with "nosmap" below. Would it make sense to
have cet=on/off/ibt/shstk instead?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+++ b/Documentation/x86/intel_cet.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
+=========================================
+Control Flow Enforcement Technology (CET)
+=========================================
+
+[1] Overview
+============
+
+Control Flow Enforcement Technology (CET) provides protection against
+return/jump-oriented programing (ROP) attacks.
Can you add something like "It attempts to protect process from
running arbitrary code even after attacker has control of its stack"
-- for people that don't know what ROP is, and perhaps link to
wikipedia explaining ROP or something...
It can be implemented
+to protect both the kernel and applications. In the first phase,
+only the user-mode protection is implemented for the 64-bit kernel.
+Thirty-two bit applications are supported under the compatibility
32-bit (for consistency).
Ok, so CET stops execution of malicious code before architectural
effects are visible, correct? Does it prevent micro-architectural
effects of the malicious code? (cache content would be one example;
see Spectre).
+[3] Application Enabling
+========================
"Enabling CET in applications" ?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+Signal
+------
+
+The main program and its signal handlers use the same SHSTK. Because
+the SHSTK stores only return addresses, we can estimate a large
+enough SHSTK to cover the condition that both the program stack and
+the sigaltstack run out.
English? Is it estimate or is it large enough? "a large" -- "a" should
be deleted AFAICT.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html