linux-kernel - amd64_edac making improper assumptions?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:02:28 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	<borislav.petkov@....com>, <dougthompson@...ssion.com>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: amd64_edac making improper assumptions?

Doug, Borislav,

the sizing of pvt_lookup[] and mci_lookup[] is done based on a config
setting (CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT), and the indexing happens using the
raw value read from hardware without any bounds checking. Hence,
running a kernel with e.g. !CONFIG_NUMA on a multi-socket system
would happily access other than the first and only array element.

Likewise, the use of rdmsr_on_cpu() doesn't seem to do what is
intended when !CONFIG_NUMA.

Also, assuming you can use cpumask_of_node() directly on the
node ID read from hardware seems bogus (even in general, but
namely again when MAX_NUMNODES is less than the actual number
of nodes).

Thanks for your explanation,
Jan

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/