From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/19] ipv4: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:59:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20180112075907.GA3391@kroah.com> References: <151571798296.27429.7166552848688034184.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <151571803884.27429.7578279171286065970.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <151571803884.27429.7578279171286065970.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> To: Dan Williams Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Kuznetsov , tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" , Elena Reshetova , alan@linux.intel.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 04:47:18PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > Static analysis reports that 'offset' may be a user controlled value > that is used as a data dependency reading from a raw_frag_vec buffer. > In order to avoid potential leaks of kernel memory values, block > speculative execution of the instruction stream that could issue further > reads based on an invalid '*(rfv->c + offset)' value. > > Based on an original patch by Elena Reshetova. There is the "Co-Developed-by:" tag now, if you want to use it... > Cc: "David S. Miller" > Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov > Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams > --- > net/ipv4/raw.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Ugh, what is this, the 4th time I've said "I don't think this is an issue, so why are you changing this code." to this patch. To be followed by a "oh yeah, you are right, I'll drop it", only to see it show back up in the next time this patch series is sent out? Same for the other patches in this series that I have reviewed 4, maybe 5, times already. The "v2" is not very true here... thanks, greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:60656 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754746AbeALH7I (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 02:59:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 08:59:07 +0100 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/19] ipv4: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution Message-ID: <20180112075907.GA3391@kroah.com> References: <151571798296.27429.7166552848688034184.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <151571803884.27429.7578279171286065970.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <151571803884.27429.7578279171286065970.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dan Williams Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Alexey Kuznetsov , tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, "David S. Miller" , Elena Reshetova , alan@linux.intel.com Message-ID: <20180112075907.s70JPCH1FVgaFst8uRRJoMqYs1CfbGFv5qhQ1gyiGeo@z> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 04:47:18PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > Static analysis reports that 'offset' may be a user controlled value > that is used as a data dependency reading from a raw_frag_vec buffer. > In order to avoid potential leaks of kernel memory values, block > speculative execution of the instruction stream that could issue further > reads based on an invalid '*(rfv->c + offset)' value. > > Based on an original patch by Elena Reshetova. There is the "Co-Developed-by:" tag now, if you want to use it... > Cc: "David S. Miller" > Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov > Cc: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams > --- > net/ipv4/raw.c | 10 ++++++---- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Ugh, what is this, the 4th time I've said "I don't think this is an issue, so why are you changing this code." to this patch. To be followed by a "oh yeah, you are right, I'll drop it", only to see it show back up in the next time this patch series is sent out? Same for the other patches in this series that I have reviewed 4, maybe 5, times already. The "v2" is not very true here... thanks, greg k-h