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:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 12:11:54 +0300
From:   Kernel User <linux-kernel@...eup.net>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     mhocko@...e.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/ doesn't show all known
 CPU vulnerabilities

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:04:57 +0200 Borislav Petkov wrote:

> IMO, what you want does not belong in sysfs but in documentation.

How would documentation (a fixed static text file) tell whether a
particular system is vulnerable or not?

> I partially see your point that a table of sorts mapping all those CPU
> vulnerability names to (possible) mitigations is needed for users
> which would like to know whether they're covered, without having to
> run some scripts from github,

Correct.

> but sysfs just ain't the place.

Then why is it currently used for some of the vulnerabilities?

I am not an expert and I don't know if it is the place. My only concern
is to have that information which we currently don't regardless of
where it may be placed.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ