linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.4 / 5.10] firmware: arm_scmi: Harden accesses to the reset domains

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2024052351-outward-skinny-c38b@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 13:58:59 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 / 5.10] firmware: arm_scmi: Harden accesses to the
 reset domains

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:22:21AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 09:38:37AM +0900, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> > From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
> >
> > [ Upstream commit e9076ffbcaed5da6c182b144ef9f6e24554af268 ]
> >
> > Accessing reset domains descriptors by the index upon the SCMI drivers
> > requests through the SCMI reset operations interface can potentially
> > lead to out-of-bound violations if the SCMI driver misbehave.
> >
> > Add an internal consistency check before any such domains descriptors
> > accesses.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220817172731.1185305-5-cristian.marussi@arm.com
> > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@...ark-techno.com>
> > ---
> > This is the backport I promised for CVE-2022-48655[1]
> > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Zj4t4q_w6gqzdvhz@codewreck.org
> >
> 
> The backport looks good and thanks for doing that. Sometimes since we
> know all the users are in the kernel, we tend to ignore the facts that
> they need to be backport as this was considered as theoretical issue when
> we pushed the fix. We try to keep that in mind and add fixes tag more
> carefully in the future. Thanks for your effort and bring this to our
> attention.

Now queued up, thanks

greg k-h