linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/amd_nb: Check for invalid SMN reads

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: <af23151e-e781-f220-c9de-36d16fb14f45@amd.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 09:56:14 -0400
From:   Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     yazen.ghannam@....com, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/amd_nb: Check for invalid SMN reads

On 5/10/23 7:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 03:10:09PM -0400, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
>> What do you think?
> 
> Yes, please put that as a comment over __amd_smn_rw() as to why callers
> should check the retval *and* make both the read and the write
> __must_check and get rid of
> 
>         if (err)
>                 pr_warn("Error %s SMN address 0x%x.\n",
>                         (write ? "writing to" : "reading from"), address);
> 
> which won't be seen in all cases. The __must_check will force the
> callers to do the proper checking which is the only sane thing to do
> with such a variety of bit behaviors.
>

Understood, will do.

Thanks,
Yazen