linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode/AMD: check microcode file sanity before loading it

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180312095336.GB9431@pd.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:53:37 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/microcode/AMD: check microcode file sanity before
 loading it

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 04:27:03PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> +/* 4k */
> +#define UCODE_EQUIV_CPU_TABLE_MAX_SIZE (256 * sizeof(struct equiv_cpu_entry))

And you came up with that max size how exactly?

> +/* If a patch is larger than this the microcode file is surely corrupted */
> +#define PATCH_MAX_SIZE_ABSOLUTE (16 * 1024 * 1024)a

Same question here.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.