linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/19] udf: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution

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]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gVvhuCvnWL2jViZPdA5dAfQKZdiUi1-akpP3EazgY5qQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:49:21 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/19] udf: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Thu 11-01-18 16:47:35, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Static analysis reports that 'eahd->appAttrLocation' and
>> 'eahd->impAttrLocation' may be a user controlled values that are used as
>> data dependencies for calculating source and destination buffers for
>> memmove operations. In order to avoid potential leaks of kernel memory
>> values, block speculative execution of the instruction stream that could
>> issue further reads based on invalid 'aal' or 'ial' values.
>>
>> Based on an original patch by Elena Reshetova.
>>
>> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>
> Dan, I've already emailed to you [1] why I don't think this patch is needed
> at all. Do you disagree or did my email just get lost?
>
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=151540683024125&w=2

Sorry, I missed that one before the v2 posting went out. I've dropped
this from the v3 [1] posting.

[1]: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=151586794400997&w=2