linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: work around MPX Erratum

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

Date:	Tue, 3 May 2016 14:39:38 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] x86: work around MPX Erratum

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> Having actually read the erratum: how can this affect Linux at all
> under any scenario where user code hasn't already completely
> compromised the kernel?

If it matches purely on linear address, you will potentially have
interesting situations with people running in virtualized environments
and crashing programs in other virtual containers or the host.

I do agree that we likely don't care all that much (especially with
the lack of users in the first place).  But considering that the
trivial workaround is to make sure SMEP is enabled - which we want to
heavily encourage anyway - I also don't think there's any real
downside to just enforcing that workaround.

              Linus