In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: riscv: Fix vector state restore in rt_sigreturn() The RISC-V Vector specification states in "Appendix D: Calling Convention for Vector State" [1] that "Executing a system call causes all caller-saved vector registers (v0-v31, vl, vtype) and vstart to become unspecified.". In the RISC-V kernel this is called "discarding the vstate". Returning from a signal handler via the rt_sigreturn() syscall, vector discard is also performed. However, this is not an issue since the vector state should be restored from the sigcontext, and therefore not care about the vector discard. The "live state" is the actual vector register in the running context, and the "vstate" is the vector state of the task. A dirty live state, means that the vstate and live state are not in synch. When vectorized user_from_copy() was introduced, an bug sneaked in at the restoration code, related to the discard of the live state. An example when this go w...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: riscv: Fix vector state restore in rt_sigreturn() The RISC-V Vector specification states in "Appendix D: Calling Convention for Vector State" [1] that "Executing a system call causes all caller-saved vector registers (v0-v31, vl, vtype) and vstart to become unspecified.". In the RISC-V kernel this is called "discarding the vstate". Returning from a signal handler via the rt_sigreturn() syscall, vector discard is also performed. However, this is not an issue since the vector state should be restored from the sigcontext, and therefore not care about the vector discard. The "live state" is the actual vector register in the running context, and the "vstate" is the vector state of the task. A dirty live state, means that the vstate and live state are not in synch. When vectorized user_from_copy() was introduced, an bug sneaked in at the restoration code, related to the discard of the live state. An example when this go w...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: riscv: Fix vector state restore in rt_sigreturn() The RISC-V Vector specification states in "Appendix D: Calling Convention for Vector State" [1] that "Executing a system call causes all caller-saved vector registers (v0-v31, vl, vtype) and vstart to become unspecified.". In the RISC-V kernel this is called "discarding the vstate". Returning from a signal handler via the rt_sigreturn() syscall, vector discard is also performed. However, this is not an issue since the vector state should be restored from the sigcontext, and therefore not care about the vector discard. The "live state" is the actual vector register in the running context, and the "vstate" is the vector state of the task. A dirty live state, means that the vstate and live state are not in synch. When vectorized user_from_copy() was introduced, an bug sneaked in at the restoration code, related to the discard of the live state. An example when this g

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: r ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: riscv: Fix vector state restore in rt_sigreturn() The RISC-V Vector specification states in "Appendix D: Calling Convention for Vector State" [1] that "Executing a system call causes all caller-saved vector registers (v0-v31, vl, vtype) and vstart to become unspecified.". In the RISC-V kernel this is called "discarding the vstate". Returning from a signal handler via the rt_sigreturn() syscall, vector discard is also performed. However, this is not an issue since the vector state should be restored from the sigcontext, and therefore not care about the vector discard. The "live state" is the actual vector register in the running context, and the "vstate" is the vector state of the task. A dirty live state, means that the vstate and live state are not in synch. When vectorized user_from_copy() was introduced, an bug sneaked in at the restoration code, related to the discard of the live state. An example when thi...