netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4 V2] Ethernet drivers in 3.14-rc3 kernel: fix 3 buffer overflows triggered by hardware devices

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: <CAKPWWNHA_EYRV__HUMrpLRN9VjrEWiPHEy5+OaFcguXpuwgHAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:17:32 -0700
From:	Alon Nafta <alon@...vatecore.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Grant Grundler <grantgrundler@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 V2] Ethernet drivers in 3.14-rc3 kernel: fix 3 buffer
 overflows triggered by hardware devices

I agree that the limit is reached where there is performance overheads
or code bloat, but since neither are introduced in this case, I'd
argue that if drivers can be made more secure by "paying" a minimal
cost, they should.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:35 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Alon Nafta <alon@...vatecore.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:35:37 -0700
>
>> Moreover, a system can be protected from malicious HW, and in fact
>> doesn't have to trust HW at all (except for the CPU obviously).
>
> So should we check to make sure the program counter of the cpu really
> increments to the next instruction every time?
>
> There is a limit to everything.
>
> The length field of DMA descriptors is absolutely, fully, trusted in
> the vast majority of drivers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html