[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0575AF4FD06DD142AD198903C74E1CC87A605256@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 14:13:45 +0000
From: "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Cyril Novikov <cnovikov@...x.com>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, X86 ML
<x86@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Russell King
<linux@...linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Greg KH
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Alan Cox
<alan@...ux.intel.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 02/12] array_idx: sanitize speculative array
de-references
> > short term there was some extremely rudimentary static analysis done. clearly
> > that has extreme limitations both in insane rate of false positives, and missing
> > cases.
>
> What was the output roughly, how many suspect places that need
> array_idx_nospec()
> handling: a few, a few dozen, a few hundred or a few thousand?
>
> I'm guessing 'static tool emitted hundreds of sites with many false positives
> included, but the real sites are probably a few dozen' - but that's really just a
> very, very wild guess.
your guess is pretty accurate; we ended up with some 15 or so places (the first patch kit Dan mailed out)
>
> - If it's more than a few dozen then intuitively I'd also be very much in favor of
> compiler help: for example trickle down __user annotations that Sparse uses
> some
> more and let the compiler sanitize indices or warn about them - without hurting
> performance of in-kernel array handling.
we need this kind of help even if it's only for the static analysis tool
> Also, IMHO any tooling should very much be open source: this isn't the kind of
> bug
> that can be identified via code review, so there's no fall-back detection method
> like we have for buffer overflows.
we absolutely need some good open source tooling; my personal preference will be a compiler plugin; that way you can use all the fancy logic inside the compilers for analysis, and you can make a "I don't care just fix it" option in addition to flagging for human inspection as the kernel would.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
