linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] Various Spectre-v1 fixes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180423164740.GY17484@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:47:40 -0600
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Various Spectre-v1 fixes

On Mon 23-04-18 11:33:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 07:03:44PM -0600, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 20-04-18 15:14:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > These fix a number of perf, x86 and sched cases where we have user controlled
> > > array dereferences.  All were found by Dan's recent Smatch update.
> > 
> > Do we want to mark all of these for stable?
> 
> If we all agree that any (speculative) user-controlled array index --
> irrespective of the existence of the second load/store that would
> complete the gadget -- needs fixing and thus all these patches are
> 'good', then yes, that makes sense.

Well, I would rather be on the safe side (have I heard security by
fear?). So if those patches are landing in upstream then I would vote to
mark them for stable. They should be trivial to backport and shouldn't
cause regressions that makes them more suitable stable candidates than
many I have seen recently...

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs