Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main)
by Jakub Kicinski :
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:45:05 -0800 you wrote:
> GCC can see that the value range for "order" is capped, but this leads
> it to consider that it might be negative, leading to a false positive
> warning (with GCC 15 wit
On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 12:11:17AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/02/2025 12:07 am, Jennifer Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:06:50PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 13/02/2025 11:24 pm, Jennifer Miller wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:24:18PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 15/02/2025 12:07 am, Jennifer Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:06:50PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 13/02/2025 11:24 pm, Jennifer Miller wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:24:18PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> Still, I hadn't considered misusing readonly/unmapped pages on the
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:06:50PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/02/2025 11:24 pm, Jennifer Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:24:18PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> ; swap stacks as normal
> movQWORD PTR gs:[rip+0x7f005f85],rsp # 0x6014
>
> mo
On 13/02/2025 11:24 pm, Jennifer Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:24:18PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
; swap stacks as normal
movQWORD PTR gs:[rip+0x7f005f85],rsp # 0x6014
movrsp,QWORD PTR gs:[rip+0x7f02c56d] # 0x2c618
>> ... these are memory a
On 14/02/2025 9:54 pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 07:39:20PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 14/02/2025 7:22 pm, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h
>>> index ef5e0a698253..dfa2ba4cceca 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 08:23:34PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 7:15 AM Jennifer Miller wrote:
> > In short, we could have the slowpath branch as you suggested, in the
> > slowpath permit the stack switch and preserving of the registers on the
> > stack, but then do a sanity c
On 2/13/25 5:53 PM, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> -Wflex-array-member-not-at-end was introduced in GCC-14, and we are
> getting ready to enable it, globally.
>
> So, in order to avoid ending up with flexible-array members in the
> middle of other structs, we use the `__struct_group()` helper to
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 07:39:20PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 14/02/2025 7:22 pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h
> > index ef5e0a698253..dfa2ba4cceca 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h
> >
On 14/02/2025 7:22 pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h
> index ef5e0a698253..dfa2ba4cceca 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cfi.h
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@
> *
> */
> enum cfi_mode {
> - CFI_AUTO,
From: Jacob Keller
Add a new extended capabilities negotiation to exchange information from
the PF about what PTP capabilities are supported by this VF. This
requires sending a VIRTCHNL_OP_1588_PTP_GET_CAPS message, and waiting
for the response from the PF. Handle this early on during the VF
init
With what appears to be an unavoidable pivot gadget always present in
the kernel (the entry code), FineIBT's lack of caller-side CFI hash
validation leaves it critically flawed[1]. Require FRED for FineIBT[2]
(and probably should also require eXecute-Only memory too), and default
to kCFI when CFI i
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 7:00 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 06:39:48AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > mseal_system_mappings() can be placed in mm.h in this patch, as you
> > suggested. But in the near future, it will be moved out of mm.h and find
> > a right header. The functiona
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 06:39:48AM -0800, Jeff Xu wrote:
> mseal_system_mappings() can be placed in mm.h in this patch, as you
> suggested. But in the near future, it will be moved out of mm.h and find
> a right header. The functionality belongs to exe namespace, because of
> the reasons I put in t
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 5:10 PM Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>
> * Liam R. Howlett [250213 19:14]:
> > * Jeff Xu [250213 17:00]:
> > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:54 PM Liam R. Howlett
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > VM_SEALED isn't defined in 32-bit systems, and mseal.c isn't part
> >
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 6:52 PM Kees Cook wrote:
>
>
>
> On February 13, 2025 2:20:01 PM PST, Jeff Xu wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:28 AM Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On February 13, 2025 6:14:00 AM PST, Jeff Xu wrote:
> >> >On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:04 AM Thomas Weißschuh
> >> >
While replacing strncpy() with strscpy(), Bart Van Assche pointed out
that the code occurs inside sysfs write callbacks, which already uses
NUL-terminated strings. This allows the string to be passed directly to
sscanf() without requiring a temporary copy.
Remove the deprecated and unnecessary str
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 08:41:16PM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The problem is that SYSCALL entry/exit is a toxic operating mode,
> because you only have to think about sneezing and another user->kernel
> priv-esc appears.
For a very brief moment I thought we could leave out the ENDBR there and
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 12:53:28PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> Right, the "if they can control a function pointer" is the part I'm
> focusing on. This attack depends on making an indirect call with a
> controlled pointer. Non-FineIBT CFI will protect against that step,
> so I think this is only an i
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 01:31:30AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> But, FRED support is slated for PantherLake/DiamondRapids which haven't
> shipped yet, so are no use to the problem right now.
FRED also fixes this IBT 'oopsie' IIRC.
20 matches
Mail list logo
