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  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, 11 Feb 2019 16:37:22 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <>
To:     Marc Zyngier <>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <>,
        Will Deacon <>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/io: Don't use WZR in writel

On 11/02/2019 14:59, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/02/2019 14:29, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> [...]
>> Also, just one more thing: yes this thing is going ARM64-wide and
>> - from my findings - it's targeting certain Qualcomm SoCs, but...
>> I'm not sure that only QC is affected by that, others may as well
>> have the same stupid bug.
> At the moment, only QC SoCs seem to be affected, probably because
> everyone else has debugged their hypervisor (or most likely doesn't
> bother with shipping one).
> In all honesty, we need some information from QC here: which SoCs are
> affected, what is the exact nature of the bug, can it be triggered from
> EL0. Randomly papering over symptoms is not something I really like
> doing, and is likely to generate problems on unaffected systems.

And even if we *were* to just try papering over the observed extent of 
the issue, I'd still be inclined to confine it to arm-smmu.c where the 
impact is finite and minimal - of the 4 instances of writel(0) there, 3 
of them don't care what the data is (so could just reuse the base 
register or similar) and the other one already has a zero in a GPR to 
hand by construction.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists