netdev - Re: [PATCH 14/18] ipv4: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 6 Jan 2018 08:29:22 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] ipv4: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 12:23:47PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 10:01:54 +0100
>> Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 05:11:10PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > > Static analysis reports that 'offset' may be a user controlled value
>> >
>> > Can I see the rule that determined that?  It does not feel like that is
>> > correct, given the 3+ levels deep that this function gets this value
>> > from...
>>
>> On a current x86 you can execute something upwards of 150 instructions in
>> a speculation window.
>
> Yeah, I agree, it's deep :(
>
> But for this patch, I thought the prior review determined that it was
> not a problem.  Was that somehow proven incorrect?

I kept it in the series to get a re-review with the wider netdev
because I missed the discussion leading up to that 'drop the patch'
decision. Sorry, I should have noted that in the changelog or cover
letter.