On 18.09.18 09:38:05, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 07:22:07PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > > On 27.08.18 16:33:07, Mian Yousaf Kaukab wrote: > > > Hard-coded since patches are merged and there are no configuration > > > options. > > > > Could you add a list of upstream patches to the description that are > > required to solve this? This would be a strict definition for the > > mitigation being enabled and makes it easier to check if backports are > > affected or not. A build-time check would be ideal (e.g. checking for > > certain macros). > > Hmm, I don't grok what you're proposing here. Why do we need a build-time > check (and to check what?)
My concern is, that for kernel backports (esp. distro kernels) there could be various interpretations of what "Mitigation: __user pointer sanitization" means. So a list of upstream patches that need to be backported in addition to this patch as a requirement would be good to agree on. That should be documented in the patch description. If these mitigations are available in a kernel backport, that could be even checked at build time. E.g. we could have a sanity check if the macro array_index_nospec() is defined. But such a check does not replace a code review of a kernel backport. I hope that makes sense? -Robert
