linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] x86/microcode/AMD: Check microcode container data in the late loader

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:   Thu, 3 May 2018 12:01:33 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/6] x86/microcode/AMD: Check microcode container data
 in the late loader

On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 02:47:39AM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> On 01.05.2018 22:03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 06:19:56PM +0200, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> >> -EINVAL cast to unsigned int is 4294967274 and this value is also
> >> a valid count of bytes to skip that this function can return.
> > 
> > And where exactly in the *old* code do we do that?
> 
> The old code returned this value as a signed int, but then any
> "patch_size" value (which is u32) above INT_MAX read from a section header
> wrapped around to a negative pseudo-error code (which likely didn't match
> any actual error number).

Lemme repeat my question: *where* *exactly* in the old code do we do that?

Feel free to paste snippets to show what you mean.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.