[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is Debian Linux protected against the Meltdown and Spectre security flaws?



On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:05:18PM +0100, mlnl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > ​Can it be true?  A version of gcc that runs on stretch that will
> > compile the latest fancy spectre fixes etc?
> 
> with latest vanilla kernel 4.15.4 and updated gcc-6:
> 
> CVE-2017-5753 [bounds check bypass] aka 'Spectre Variant 1'
> * Mitigated according to the /sys interface:  YES  (kernel confirms that
> the mitigation is active)
> * Kernel has array_index_mask_nospec:  YES  (1 occurence(s) found of 64
> bits array_index_mask_nospec())
> > STATUS:  NOT VULNERABLE  (Mitigation: __user pointer sanitization)
> 
> CVE-2017-5715 [branch target injection] aka 'Spectre Variant 2'
> * Mitigated according to the /sys interface:  YES  (kernel confirms that
> the mitigation is active)
> * Mitigation 1
>   * Kernel is compiled with IBRS/IBPB support:  NO
>   * Currently enabled features
>     * IBRS enabled for Kernel space:  NO
>     * IBRS enabled for User space:  NO
>     * IBPB enabled:  NO
> * Mitigation 2
>   * Kernel compiled with retpoline option:  YES
>   * Kernel compiled with a retpoline-aware compiler:  YES  (kernel
> reports full retpoline compilation)
>   * Retpoline enabled:  NO
      			  ^^
I get the same result. I wonder why reptoline is disabled.

> > STATUS:  NOT VULNERABLE  (Mitigation: Full generic retpoline)
> 
> CVE-2017-5754 [rogue data cache load] aka 'Meltdown' aka 'Variant 3'
> * Mitigated according to the /sys interface:  YES  (kernel confirms that
> the mitigation is active)
> * Kernel supports Page Table Isolation (PTI):  YES
> * PTI enabled and active:  YES
> * Running as a Xen PV DomU:  NO
> > STATUS:  NOT VULNERABLE  (Mitigation: PTI)
> 
> grep bugs /proc/cpuinfo
> bugs            : cpu_meltdown spectre_v1 spectre_v2
> model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4570 CPU @ 3.20GHz
> 
> 
> 
> stepping        : 3
> 
> 
> 
> microcode       : 0x22
> 
> -- 
> mlnl

-- 
Felipe Salvador


Reply to: