[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19334.40943.479593.304961@pilspetsen.it.uu.se>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:06:07 +0100
From: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
To: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>
Cc: Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is kernel optimized with dead store removal?
Roel Kluin writes:
>
> > > Does this optimization also occur during compilation of the Linux
> > > kernel?
>
> > Any such dead store removal is up to the compiler and the lifetime
> > of the object being clobbered. For 'auto' objects the optimization
> > is certainly likely.
> >
> > This is only a problem if the memory (a thread stack, say) is recycled
> > and leaked uninitialized to user-space, but such bugs are squashed
> > fairly quickly upon discovery.
>
> Thanks for comments,
>
> In the sha1_update() case I don't know whether the stack is recycled and
> leaked - it may be dependent on the calling function, but isn't it
> vulnerable?
It's only vulnerable if the data leaks to a less trusted domain.
There is no domain crossing in your user-space example.
In the kernel case, the domain crossing would be as I wrote: leaking
recycled and uninitialized memory to user-space (and those leaks of
uninitialized memory are frowned upon and quickly fixed when discovered).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists