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, 18 Jun 2021 22:02:57 +0100
From:   Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        "Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 61/66] x86/fpu/signal: Sanitize the xstate check on
 sigframe

On 18/06/2021 15:19, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Utilize the check for the extended state magic in the FX software reserved
> bytes and set the parameters for restoring fx_only in the relevant members
> of fw_sw_user.
>
> This allows further cleanups on top because the data is consistent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c |   69 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c
> @@ -15,29 +15,29 @@
>  #include <asm/sigframe.h>
>  #include <asm/trace/fpu.h>
>  
> -static struct _fpx_sw_bytes fx_sw_reserved, fx_sw_reserved_ia32;
> +static struct _fpx_sw_bytes fx_sw_reserved, fx_sw_reserved_ia32 __ro_after_init;

You probably want a second __ro_after_init here.

~Andrew

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ