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]

Message-ID: <YkAuqiHAEaDLHDAO@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 27 Mar 2022 11:30:18 +0200
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 Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 11:41:17AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 3:18 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:"
> >
> > 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.
> 
> If you're following that thread, you'll have seen that I've reverted
> it, and I actually think the security argument was bogus - the whole
> commit was due to a misunderstanding of the actual direction of the
> data transfer.

I see that now, thanks.

But why did you just revert that commit, and not the previous one (i.e.
the one that this one "fixes")?  Shouldn't ddbd89deb7d3 ("swiotlb: fix
info leak with DMA_FROM_DEVICE") also be dropped?

I'm going to drop both from the 5.4 and 5.10 stable queues now, and add
your revert, but I think your tree also needs the original swiotlb fix
commit reverted to get back to a "known good" state.

thanks,

greg k-h