linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Do not leak kernel stack data in the KVM_S390

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:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:37:04 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Do not leak kernel stack data in the
 KVM_S390_INTERRUPT ioctl

On 13.09.19 09:34, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 13/09/2019 09.20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:23:38 +0200
>> Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, we already talked about deprecating support for pre-3.15 kernel
>>> stuff in the past (see
>>> https://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/2.12#Future_incompatible_changes for
>>> example),
>>
>> Btw: did we ever do that? I don't quite recall what code we were
>> talking about...
> 
> We never really did - but we also never fixed the issue: If you run the
> current QEMU on a kernel before 3.15, it refuses to work due to the
> missing in-kernel FLIC device:
> 
> Initialization of device s390-flic-kvm failed: KVM is missing capability
> KVM_CAP_DEVICE_CTR
> 
> Since nobody really complained so far that running QEMU with KVM is
> still required on a kernel < 3.15, I think we could make this also
> "official" now and improve the error message a little bit, pointing the
> user to a kernel >= 3.15.

Didn't we discuss back then to clean up *QEMU* and not the *kernel*?
Especially, to wait with cleanups until somebody requests to fix
instead. I mean you could have any user space in the wild that still
makes use of these interfaces ...

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb