On 02/24/2015 02:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 02/24/2015 02:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In all three 32-bit entry points, %eax is zero-extended to %rax.
>>>> It is safe to do 32-bit compare when checking that syscall#
>>>> is not too large.
>>>
>>> Applied. Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> NAK NAK NAK NAK NAK!!!!
>>
>> We have already had this turn into a security issue not just once but
>> TWICE, because someone decided to "optimize" the path by taking out the
>> zero extend.
>>
>> The use of a 64-bit compare here is an intentional "belts and
>> suspenders" safety issue.
>
> Fair enough. OK if I just undo that part of this patch?
>
Actually this part should have been broken up. The word "several" in
the patch description is by itself a cause to NAK the patch.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
