[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] usbip: vhci_sysfs: fix potential Spectre v1

On 05/17/2018 02:15 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> Shouldn't we just do this in one place, in the valid_port() function?
>>> That way it keeps the range checking logic in one place (now it is in 3
>>> places in the function), which should make maintenance much simpler.
>> Yep, I thought about that, the thing is: what happens if the hardware is
>> "trained" to predict that valid_port always evaluates to false, and then
>> malicious values are stored in pdev_nr and nhport?
>> It seems to me that under this scenario we need to serialize instructions in
>> this place.
>> What do you think?
> I don't understand, it should not matter where you put the barrier. Be
> it a function call back or right after it, it does the same thing, it
> stops speculation from crossing that barrier.

Yeah. It makes sense.

> So it _should_ work either way, if I understand the issue correctly.
> If not, what am I missing?

No. It seems I'm the one who was missing something.

I'll place the barrier into valid_port and send v2 shortly.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-17 21:30    [W:0.070 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site