linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 11/38] swiotlb: rework "fix info leak with DMA_FROM

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:   Sat, 26 Mar 2022 11:18:06 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 11/38] swiotlb: rework "fix info leak with
 DMA_FROM_DEVICE"

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 10:08:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:09 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
> >
> > commit aa6f8dcbab473f3a3c7454b74caa46d36cdc5d13 upstream.
> 
> This one causes a regression on at least some wireless drivers
> (ath9k). There's some active discussion about it, maybe it gets
> reverted, maybe there are other options.
> 
> There's an ath9k patch that fixes the problem, so if this patch goes
> into the stable tree the ath9k fix will follow.
> 
> But it might be a good idea to simply hold off on this patch a bit,
> because that ath9k patch hasn't actually landed yet, there's some
> discussion about it all, and it's not clear that other drivers might
> not have the same issue.
> 
> So I'm not NAK'ing this patch from stable, but I also don't think it's
> timing-critical, and it might be a good idea to delay it for a week or
> two to both wait for the ath9k patch and to see if something else
> comes up.

Yes, I've been watching that thread.  This change is already in 5.15 and
5.16 kernels, and does solve one known security issue, so it's a tough
call.  I'll drop them from 5.10 and 5.4 for now and save them to see how
it plays out...

thanks,

greg k-h