linux-kernel - Re: Is kernel optimized with dead store removal?

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]

Message-ID: <4B86C05A.9010604@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:24:26 +0100
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
CC:	Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>,
	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?

Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> 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).

Quickly fixed when discovered, but not necessary quickly discovered...
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==-=- --=- ==--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/