linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 15/50] s390/alternative: use a copy of the facility bit mask

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:   Fri, 4 May 2018 15:18:08 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 15/50] s390/alternative: use a copy of the facility
 bit mask

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:37:20AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 04/27/2018, 03:58 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
> > 
> > 
> > [ Upstream commit cf1489984641369611556bf00c48f945c77bcf02 ]
> > 
> > To be able to switch off specific CPU alternatives with kernel parameters
> > make a copy of the facility bit mask provided by STFLE and use the copy
> > for the decision to apply an alternative.
> ...
> > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/facility.h
> > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/facility.h
> > @@ -13,6 +13,24 @@
> >  
> >  #define MAX_FACILITY_BIT (256*8)	/* stfle_fac_list has 256 bytes */
> 
> I wonder if the below (plus __test_facility) is correct in 4.4, given
> MAX_FACILITY_BIT is defined as such and not as sizeof(stfle_fac_list *
> 8) as in upstream?

I'm going to defer to Marin here, as he did the backport...
Martin?

thanks,

greg k-h