[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4408b424-1a85-326a-6506-02fde32bf8b8@iogearbox.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 17:34:52 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alan Cox <alan.cox@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Solomon Peachy <pizza@...ftnet.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@...glemail.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"Linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative
execution
On 01/11/2018 04:58 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:44:05AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ... snip ... ]
>>>>>> Andi Kleen (1):
>>>>>> x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access_ok
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan Williams (13):
>>>>>> x86: implement nospec_barrier()
>>>>>> [media] uvcvideo: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> carl9170: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> p54: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> qla2xxx: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> cw1200: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> Thermal/int340x: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> ipv6: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> ipv4: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> vfs, fdtable: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> net: mpls: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> udf: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>> userns: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Rutland (4):
>>>>>> asm-generic/barrier: add generic nospec helpers
>>>>>> Documentation: document nospec helpers
>>>>>> arm64: implement nospec_ptr()
>>>>>> arm: implement nospec_ptr()
>>>>>
>>>>> So considering the recent publication of [1], how come we all of a sudden
>>>>> don't need the barriers in ___bpf_prog_run(), namely for LD_IMM_DW and
>>>>> LDX_MEM_##SIZEOP, and something comparable for eBPF JIT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this going to be handled in eBPF in some other way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Without that in place, and considering Jann Horn's paper, it would seem
>>>>> like PTI doesn't really lock it down fully, right?
>>>>
>>>> Here is the latest (v3) bpf fix:
>>>>
>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/856645/
>>>>
>>>> I currently have v2 on my 'nospec' branch and will move that to v3 for
>>>> the next update, unless it goes upstream before then.
>>
>> Daniel, I guess you're planning to send this still for 4.15?
>
> It's pending in the bpf.git tree:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf.git/commit/?id=b2157399cc9
Sorry for the delay, just noticed the question now since not on Cc either:
It made it into in DaveM's tree already and part of his latest pull-req
to Linus.
>>> That patch seems specific to CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL. Is the bpf() syscall
>>> the only attack vector? Or are there other ways to run bpf programs
>>> that we should be worried about?
>>
>> Seems like Alexei is probably the only person in the whole universe who
>> isn't CCed here ... let's fix that.
>
> He will be cc'd on v2 of this series which will be available later today.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists