linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc/64s: Enhance the information in cpu_show_spectre

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: <1b720765-faf1-719e-ab76-b3eafa559896@c-s.fr>
Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 16:13:49 +0200
From:   Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/64s: Enhance the information in
 cpu_show_spectre_v1()



Le 28/05/2018 à 15:19, Michal Suchanek a écrit :
> We now have barrier_nospec as mitigation so print it in
> cpu_show_spectre_v1 when enabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>
> ---
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c | 5 ++++-
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c
> index 0239383c7e4d..a0c32d53980b 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/security.c
> @@ -120,7 +120,10 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_spectre_v1(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, c
>   	if (!security_ftr_enabled(SEC_FTR_BNDS_CHK_SPEC_BAR))
>   		return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n");
>   
> -	return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n");
> +	if (barrier_nospec_enabled)

> +		return sprintf(buf, "Mitigation: __user pointer sanitization\n");
> +	else
> +		return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n");

Checkpatch would tell you that an else is unneeded after a return. So 
just leave it as it was before.

Christophe

>   }
>   
>   ssize_t cpu_show_spectre_v2(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>