[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529FAFFC.90605@citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:43:08 +0000
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To: Matthew Daley <mattd@...fuzz.com>, <oss-security@...ts.openwall.com>
CC: Xen.org security team <security@....org>, Xen-devel
<xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen Security Advisory 82 (CVE-2013-6885)
- Guest triggerable AMD CPU erratum may cause host hang
On 02/12/2013 22:43, Matthew Daley wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Kurt Seifried <kseifried@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 12/02/2013 10:22 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> * Should the Xen Project security te4am have treated this issue
>>> with an embargo at all, given that the flaw itself was public ?
>> I would say this depends on the level of public disclosure. For
>> example from "upstream" (AMD) there was a very limited disclosure (no
>> public announcement I'm aware of) and just some notes in a single PDF.
>> However this was also made public via the person who found it and then
>> picked up by ZDnet in an article, so I would personally count that as
>> quite public.
> Can you post a link to this ZDnet article? I don't think it can be the
> one linked in the CVE description itself, because that talks about a
> different, earlier bug IIUC; I privately asked Matt Dillon, who
> discovered Errata 721, and he agreed that this CVE talks about a
> different (but maybe related) Errata, #793.
>
> - Matthew
The email (ID 201311280223.rAS2NbPL019021@...us.mitre.org) has the
following links
http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/kernel/2011-December/046594.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/amd-owns-up-to-cpu-bug/18924
And identifies them as related to CVE-2013-6885
Unless DragonflyBSD is giving Write Combining memory to its regular
userspace processes (which would frankly be crazy and cause abysmal
performance - uncacheable reads have a habit of slowing things down
somewhat), I cant see any similarity between the CVE and the problem
described by Matt Dillon in the links.
The zdnet article quotes a statement from AMD of:
Also, this marginal erratum impacts the previous four generations of AMD
Opteron processors which include the AMD Opteron 2300,8300
8300("Barcelona" and "Shanghai",) 2400, 8400 ("Istanbul",) and 4100,
6100 ("Lisbon" and "Magny-Cours") series processors.
None of these generations are the "Jaguar Architecture" Family 16h
identified in the erratum description from #793 Furthermore, Matt
Dillon appears to be under the impression that he found erratum #721.
It therefore appears that the original MITRE email was incorrect as
identifying the two links (refering to #721, and nearly 2 years old
judging by http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.dragonfly-bsd.kernel/14518)
as related to #793 (whos errata document's inital release was June of
this year).
Can anyone from AMD formally confirm or deny a link between errata #721
and #793 ?
~Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
