linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2 4/4] x86/speculation: Add prctl to control indirect branch speculation per process

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810052046110.5454@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 5 Oct 2018 20:46:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 4/4] x86/speculation: Add prctl to control indirect
 branch speculation per process

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018, Tim Chen wrote:

> On 10/02/2018 10:58 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
> >>  
> >> +void arch_set_dumpable(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm, int value)
> >> +{
> >> +	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&spectre_v2_app_lite))
> >> +		return;
> >> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_STIBP))
> >> +		return;
> >> +
> >> +	if ((unsigned) value != SUID_DUMP_USER) {
> > 
> > First of all we use unsigned int and not unsigned, Aside of that why is the
> > argument not unsigned int right away?
> 
> 
> The original set_dumpable passes suid_dumpable, which was
> exposed via /proc/sys/fs/suid_dumpable and defined as int.
> It will make sense to define suid_dumpable as an unsigned int instead.
> 
> Would you like me to redefine suid_dumpable as unsigned int
> in sysctl.c in the patch revision as a separate clean up patch?

Yes, that makes sense.

Thanks,

	tglx