[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190121191541.GB4026@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 20:15:41 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Julian Stecklina <jsteckli@...zon.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86/speculation: add L1 Terminal Fault / Foreshadow demo
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:36:18AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > + /* Check the start address: needs to be page-aligned.. */
> > +- if (start & ~PAGE_MASK)
> > ++ if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) {
> > ++
> > ++ /*
> > ++ * XXX Hack
> > ++ *
> > ++ * We re-use this error case to show case a cache load gadget:
> > ++ * There is a mispredicted branch, which leads to prefetching
> > ++ * the cache with attacker controlled data.
> > ++ */
> > ++ asm volatile (
>
> Obviously that can never be added to a standard kernel.
No, that's why it is a patch, right? People want to test things, it's
nice to have a way to easily do this.
> And I don't see much point in shipping test cases that require non
> standard kernel patching. The idea of shipping test cases is that
> you can easily test them, but in this form it can't.
It's better than having nothing at all, which is what we have today. So
I see no harm in it, only benefits.
thanks,
greg k-h
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.
