[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54ED02CA.4030007@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:01:30 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86: entry.S: tidy up several suboptimal insns
On 02/24/2015 02:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 02/24/2015 02:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> In all three 32-bit entry points, %eax is zero-extended to %rax.
>>>> It is safe to do 32-bit compare when checking that syscall#
>>>> is not too large.
>>>
>>> Applied. Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> NAK NAK NAK NAK NAK!!!!
>>
>> We have already had this turn into a security issue not just once but
>> TWICE, because someone decided to "optimize" the path by taking out the
>> zero extend.
>>
>> The use of a 64-bit compare here is an intentional "belts and
>> suspenders" safety issue.
>
> Fair enough. OK if I just undo that part of this patch?
>
Actually this part should have been broken up. The word "several" in
the patch description is by itself a cause to NAK the patch.
-hpa
--
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