[oss-security] Intel FP security issue

[Loganaden Velvindron]

Hi All,

Both OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD have gone ahead and committed fixes for
the rumored Intel FP issue:

OpenBSD: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=152818076013158&w=2
DragonflyBSD: http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2018-June/672324.html

I think that the cat is already out of the bag, and releasing details
of this security problem makes sense. Since this has gone public, Is
there a reason to keep this under embargo ?

Kind regards,
//Logan
C-x-C-c

[Loganaden Velvindron]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Loganaden Velvindron

Post by Loganaden Velvindron
Hi All,
Both OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD have gone ahead and committed fixes for
OpenBSD: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=152818076013158&w=2
DragonflyBSD: http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2018-June/672324.html
I think that the cat is already out of the bag, and releasing details
of this security problem makes sense. Since this has gone public, Is
there a reason to keep this under embargo ?

FreeBSD appears to be moving in this direction too:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=335072

Post by Loganaden Velvindron
Kind regards,
//Logan
C-x-C-c

[Marcus Meissner]

Hi,

Post by Loganaden Velvindron
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Loganaden Velvindron

Post by Loganaden Velvindron
Hi All,
Both OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD have gone ahead and committed fixes for
OpenBSD: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=152818076013158&w=2
DragonflyBSD: http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2018-June/672324.html
I think that the cat is already out of the bag, and releasing details
of this security problem makes sense. Since this has gone public, Is
there a reason to keep this under embargo ?

https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=335072

For the record, this is https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00145.html
aka CVE-2018-3665 with codename "Lazy FPU Save/Restore".

XEN advisory https://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-267.html was posted here too, describing it a bit better.

Full details are planned to be released June 27th.

Ciao, Marcus

[Liguori, Anthony]

Post by Marcus Meissner
Hi,

Post by Loganaden Velvindron
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Loganaden Velvindron

Post by Loganaden Velvindron
Hi All,
Both OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD have gone ahead and committed fixes for
OpenBSD: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=152818076013158&w=2
DragonflyBSD: http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/commits/2018-June/672324.html
I think that the cat is already out of the bag, and releasing details
of this security problem makes sense. Since this has gone public, Is
there a reason to keep this under embargo ?

https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=335072

For the record, this is https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00145.html
aka CVE-2018-3665 with codename "Lazy FPU Save/Restore".
XEN advisory https://xenbits.xen.org/xsa/advisory-267.html was posted here too, describing it a bit better.
Full details are planned to be released June 27th.

The discover sent a post here but I suspect it's stuck in the moderation queue. I'll repost later today.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Post by Marcus Meissner
Ciao, Marcus

[Solar Designer]

Post by Liguori, Anthony
The discover sent a post here but I suspect it's stuck in the moderation queue. I'll repost later today.

There's nothing like this in the moderation queue. Also not in the spam
filter. Please repost right away.

BTW, the above message of yours lacks an In-Reply-To header, even though
it appears to be a reply to Marcus' message. So technically it started
a new thread. There's probably something broken on your end.

Alexander

[Anthony Liguori]

Post by Solar Designer

Post by Liguori, Anthony
The discover sent a post here but I suspect it's stuck in the moderation queue. I'll repost later today.

There's nothing like this in the moderation queue. Also not in the spam
filter. Please repost right away.

Hrm, I'll check with the reporter but I just sent it myself. Should
appear shortly.

Post by Solar Designer
BTW, the above message of yours lacks an In-Reply-To header, even though
it appears to be a reply to Marcus' message. So technically it started
a new thread. There's probably something broken on your end.

Yes, phone email client :-/

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

Post by Solar Designer
Alexander