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: <20180529164640.02faedcd@kitsune.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 29 May 2018 16:46:40 +0200
From:   Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
To:     Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Cc:     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()

On Tue, 29 May 2018 16:13:49 +0200
Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr> wrote:

> 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.

Where did you get your copy of checkpatch? The one in Linux tree does
not do that.

Thanks

Michal