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:   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.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ