linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/18] arm64: don't disable ADR_PREL_PG_HI21* with ARM64_ERRATUM

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:   Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:34:03 +0000
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
        Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
        Alex Matveev <alxmtvv@...il.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/18] arm64: don't disable ADR_PREL_PG_HI21* with ARM64_ERRATUM_843419

On 16 November 2017 at 16:32, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:44:06AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Right, and this would also mean that we silently load vulnerable
>> modules that are linked with either LD that doesn't support
>> --fix-cortex-a53-843419 or simply wasn't passed.
>
> You'll see a warning at least if the linker doesn't support the flag,
> but yes, you're correct. In v1 of this patch set, LTO depended on this
> erratum not being selected, but I changed it in v2 based on Ard's
> suggestion.
>
> I'm fine with not being able to use LTO on devices that are affected
> by this erratum, so either option works for me. I can even change
> this so the user must explicitly disable the erratum in order to use
> LTO. Thoughts?
>

You still have not explained to us how GOLD avoids the erratum.