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: <20241114154704.GHZzYbeDmCV9u1fdVJ@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:47:04 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/microcode/AMD: Make __verify_patch_size() return
 bool

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 04:40:50PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Right, the important bit here is that max_size is not really max_size but,

I take that back and this really is max_size. I went back and looked. These
are the patches for the older families:

Patch 00: type 1, size:  960
Patch 01: type 1, size:  960
Patch 02: type 1, size:  960
Patch 03: type 1, size:  960
Patch 04: type 1, size:  960
Patch 05: type 1, size:  960
Patch 06: type 1, size:  960
Patch 07: type 1, size:  960
Patch 08: type 1, size:  512
Patch 09: type 1, size:  960
Patch 10: type 1, size: 1568
Patch 11: type 1, size: 1568

Lemme go and look in detail again, just to be sure.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ