linux-kernel - Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 3 Jan 2018 16:18:39 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Lang <david@...g.hm>
To:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
        dwmw@...zon.co.uk, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:

>>
>> Why is this all done without any configuration options?
>
> I was thinking of a config option, but I was struggling with a name.
>
> CONFIG_INSECURE_KERNEL, CONFIG_LEAK_MEMORY?

CONFIG_BUGGY_INTEL_CACHE (or similar)

something that indicates that this is to support the Intel CPUs that have this 
bug in them.

We've had such CPU specific support options in the past.

Some people will need the speed more than the protection, some people will be 
running on CPUs that don't need this.

Why is this needed? because of an Intel bug, so name it accordingly.

David Lang