linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_mem: fix panic on mb

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: <14ac1cb4-1cf0-03a3-d412-c35fa9eeea59@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Dec 2021 14:53:08 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Ren <renzhengeek@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vbabka@...e.cz, ziy@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_mem: fix panic on mb_states indexing overflow

Hi Eric,

> _vm->sbm.first_mb_id == 0

^ that's precisely what I meant.

How could it *ever* be safe on x86-64 to let a virtio-mem device start
on physical address 0, eventually overlapping essentially all DMA, the
BIOS and the PCI hole.

Thus my question: Is this a "fix" for x86-64 or is this a "prepare for"
for !x86-64 (e.g., arm64).

If it's a fix, we want proper "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags. But I
assume this is much rather a preparation for another architecture than
x86-64.

Thanks!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb