linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access

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:   Sun, 07 Jan 2018 21:04:47 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     tglx@...utronix.de
Cc:     James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, w@....eu,
        gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed
 access_ok

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:31:41 +0100 (CET)

> 2) Alexei's analyis is purely based on the public information of the google
>    zero folks. If it would be complete and the only attack vector all fine.
> 
>    If not and I doubt it is, we're going to regret this decision faster
>    than we made it and this is not the kind of play field where we can
>    afford that.

Please state this more clearly.

Do you know about other attack vectors and just are not allowed to
talk about them?

Or is this, ironically, speculation?