linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/fault: Correct a few user vs kernel checks wrt WRUSS

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, 3 Feb 2021 16:48:55 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] x86/fault: Correct a few user vs kernel checks wrt
 WRUSS

On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 09:24:36AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> In general, page fault errors for WRUSS should be just like get_user(),
> etc.  Fix three bugs in this area:
> 
> We have a comment that says that, if we can't handle a page fault on a user
> address due to OOM, we will skip the OOM-kill-and-retry logic.  The code
> checked kernel *privilege*, not kernel mode, so it missed WRUSS.  This
> means that we would malfunction if we got OOM on a WRUSS fault -- this
> would be a kernel-mode, user-privilege fault, and we would invoke the OOM
> killer and retry.

Please convert all those commit messages to passive voice - the "we" is
ambiguous.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette