[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iNJrcKBiN+3=ZZ1MHU1PYbt4rLDLgWZY5Kc+O8regDYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 17:57:18 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/18] Thermal/int340x: prevent bounds-check bypass via
speculative execution
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 17:10 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Static analysis reports that 'trip' may be a user controlled value
>> that
>> is used as a data dependency to read '*temp' from the 'd->aux_trips'
>> array. In order to avoid potential leaks of kernel memory values,
>> block
>> speculative execution of the instruction stream that could issue
>> reads
>> based on an invalid value of '*temp'.
>
> Not against the change as this is in a very slow path. But the trip is
> not an arbitrary value which user can enter.
>
> This trip value is the one of the sysfs attribute in thermal zone. For
> example
>
> # cd /sys/class/thermal/thermal_zone1
> # ls trip_point_?_temp
> trip_point_0_temp trip_point_1_temp trip_point_2_temp trip_point_3_t
> emp trip_point_4_temp trip_point_5_temp trip_point_6_temp
>
> Here the "trip" is one of the above trip_point_*_temp. So in this case
> it can be from 0 to 6 as user can't do
> # cat trip_point_7_temp
> as there is no sysfs attribute for trip_point_7_temp.
>
> The actual "trip" was obtained in thermal core via
>
> if (sscanf(attr->attr.name, "trip_point_%d_temp", &trip) != 1)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> Thanks,
> Srinivas
Ah, great, thanks. So do we even need the bounds check at that point?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists