linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v5 1/2] x86/speculation: apply IBPB more strictly to avoid cross-process data leak

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:36:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>
cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 1/2] x86/speculation: apply IBPB more strictly to
 avoid cross-process data leak

On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Schaufler, Casey wrote:

> Yes, It would require that this patch be tested against all the existing 
> security modules that provide a ptrace_access_check hook. It's not like 
> the security module writers don't have a bunch of locking issues to deal 
> with.

Yeah, that was indeed my concern.

So can we agree on doing this in the 2nd envisioned step, when this is 
going to be replaced by LSM as discussed [1] previously?

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/99FC4B6EFCEFD44486C35F4C281DC67321447094@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs