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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:49:55 -0700
From:	Martin Kelly <martin@...tingkelly.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC:	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	Martin Kelly <martkell@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/setup: add paranoid index check and warning

On 10/14/2014 09:28 AM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:09 AM, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com> wrote:
>> On 14/10/14 15:04, Martin Kelly wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>> On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
>>>>> In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
>>>>> i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
>>>>> cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
>>>>> a check against 0 value and a corresponding warning.
>>>>
>>>> This can only happen if the toolstack supplies a memory map with zero
>>>> entries.  I could see justification for adding a panic at the top of
>>>> this function in this case, but I can't see the usefulness of this warning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, a panic is probably appropriate. What do you think about the
>>> relative merits of panicing in the callers vs. in the
>>> sanitize_e820_map function itself (thus to avoid a bunch of similar
>>> error checks in the callers)?
>>
>> For Xen, it should panic immediately after getting the memory map.
>>
>> You will note that there is fallback code for the case when no memory
>> map is provided.  But I do not think this should be used in the case
>> where the toolstack provided an empty memory map.
>>
>> David
> 
> Sounds like the flow should be as follows:
> 1) Ask Xen for the memory map.
> 2) If no memory map is provided, use fallback code.
> 3) If the memory map has 0 entries, panic.
> 
> I will revise the patch to do that.
> 

I have sent a revision adding the panic:
"[PATCH] x86/xen: panic on bad Xen-provided memory map"
--
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