linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: sys: fix potential Spectre v1

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: <CAPcyv4jOpZTvvRgx6N9_hJNvpdt+ABpnbMExsGfSDxGpMr5VuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 06:55:50 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: sys: fix potential Spectre v1

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry for being late to the party..
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:03:57AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
>> +#define validate_index_nospec(index, size)                            \
>> +({                                                                    \
>> +       bool ret = true;                                               \
>> +       typeof(index) *ptr = &(index);                                 \
>> +       typeof(size) _s = (size);                                      \
>> +                                                                      \
>> +       BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(*ptr) > sizeof(long));                     \
>> +       BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(_s) > sizeof(long));                       \
>> +                                                                      \
>> +       if (*ptr >= size)                                              \
>> +               ret = false;                                           \
>> +                                                                      \
>> +       *ptr = array_index_nospec(*ptr, _s);                           \
>> +                                                                      \
>> +       ret;                                                           \
>> +})
>
> Would not something like:
>
>         bool ret = false;
>
>         ....
>
>         if (*ptr < _s) {
>                 *ptr = array_index_nospec(*ptr, _s);
>                 ret = true;
>         }
>
>         ret;
>
> be more obvious?

Yes, that looks even better to me.