linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] virtio: Add boundary checks to virtio ring

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: <ccf32bdc-a487-040b-5fe6-fcc8e71a57da@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jun 2021 19:18:20 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, mst@...hat.com
Cc:     virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, hch@....de,
        m.szyprowski@...sung.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
        sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/8] virtio: Add boundary checks to virtio ring


> It looks to me all the evils came from the fact that we depends on the 
> descriptor ring.
>
> So the checks in this patch could is unnecessary if we don't even read 
> from the descriptor ring which could be manipulated by the device.
>
> This is what my series tries to achieve:
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg241825.html

I would argue that you should boundary check in any case. It was always 
a bug to not have boundary checks in such a data structure with multiple 
users, trust or not.

But yes your patch series is interesting and definitely makes sense for 
TDX too.

Best would be to have both I guess, and always check the boundaries 
everywhere.

So what's the merge status of your series?

-Andi