linux-kernel - Re: /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/ doesn't show all known CPU vulnerabilities

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]

Message-ID: <20190814070457.GA26456@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:04:57 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Kernel User <linux-kernel@...eup.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/ doesn't show all known
 CPU vulnerabilities

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 01:00:41AM +0300, Kernel User wrote:
> That could be clarified like:
> 
> vulnerability1 - mitigation MDS
> vulnerability2 - mitigation MDS
> vulnerability3 - mitigation 3 (another mitigation)
> ...
>
> Then it could be a file with content saying "No mitigation".

And keep adding a sysfs file for each new variant and CVE?

Hell no.

> Knowing that there is no mitigation or that a CPU is not affected is
> quite different from not knowing anything. So I don't see why you
> conclude that knowledge is unnecessary.

IMO, what you want does not belong in sysfs but in documentation.

I partially see your point that a table of sorts mapping all those CPU
vulnerability names to (possible) mitigations is needed for users which
would like to know whether they're covered, without having to run some
scripts from github, but sysfs just ain't the place.

Again, this is only my opinion.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.