linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] sysfs/cpu: Add "Unknown" vulnerability state

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: <20190103093858.GA10794@kroah.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jan 2019 10:38:58 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will.deacon@....com, marc.zyngier@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        dave.martin@....com, shankerd@...eaurora.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ykaukab@...e.de,
        julien.thierry@....com, mlangsdo@...hat.com, steven.price@....com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] sysfs/cpu: Add "Unknown" vulnerability state

On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 06:49:15PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> There is a lot of variation in the Arm ecosystem. Because of this,
> there exist possible cases where the kernel cannot authoritatively
> determine if a machine is vulnerable.

Really?  Why not?  What keeps you from "knowing" this?  Can't the
developer of the chip tell you?

> Rather than guess the vulnerability status in cases where
> the mitigation is disabled or the firmware isn't responding
> correctly, we need to display an "Unknown" state.

Shouldn't "Unknown" really be the same thing as "Vulnerable"?  A user
should treat it the same way, "Unknown" makes it feel like "maybe I can
just ignore this and hope I really am safe", which is not a good idea at
all.

thanks,

greg k-h