From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/12] array_idx: sanitize speculative array de-references Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:13:18 -0800 Message-ID: References: <151703971300.26578.1185595719337719486.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <151703972396.26578.7326612698912543866.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20180128085500.djlm5rlbhjlpfj4i@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from mail-ot0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]:39943 "EHLO mail-ot0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751907AbeA3UNT (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:13:19 -0500 Received: by mail-ot0-f178.google.com with SMTP id x4so11172250otg.7 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:13:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-arch , Cyril Novikov , Kernel Hardening , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , X86 ML , Will Deacon , Russell King , Ingo Molnar , Greg KH , "H. Peter Anvin" , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Arjan Van De Ven [ adding Arjan ] On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: [..] > Anyway, I do think the patches I've seen so far are ok, and the real > reason I'm writing this email is actually more about future patches: > do we have a good handle on where these array index sanitations will > be needed? > > Also, while array limit checking was obviously the official > "spectre-v1" issue, I do wonder if there are possible other issues > where mispredicted conditional branches can end up leaking > information? > > IOW, is there some work on tooling/analysis/similar? Not asking for > near-term, but more of a "big picture" question.. > > Linus