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:   Fri, 23 Nov 2018 00:45:19 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Dave Stewart <david.c.stewart@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 24/24] x86/speculation: Add seccomp Spectre v2 app to
 app protection mode

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > +	[SPECTRE_V2_APP2APP_SECCOMP]	= "App-App Mitigation: seccomp and prctl opt-in",
> 
> This description is not accurate: it's not a 'seccomp and prctl opt-in', 
> the seccomp functionality is opt-out, the prctl is opt-in.
> 
> So something like:
> 
> > +	[SPECTRE_V2_APP2APP_SECCOMP]	= "App-App Mitigation: seccomp by default and prctl opt-in",

Na. I just make it: "prctl" and "seccomp + prctl" 

> >  void arch_seccomp_spec_mitigate(struct task_struct *task)
> >  {
> >  	if (ssb_mode == SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_SECCOMP)
> >  		ssb_prctl_set(task, PR_SPEC_FORCE_DISABLE);
> > +	if (spectre_v2_app2app == SPECTRE_V2_APP2APP_SECCOMP)
> > +		indir_branch_prctl_set(task, PR_SPEC_FORCE_DISABLE);
> >  }
> >  #endif
> 
> Hm, so isn't arch_seccomp_spec_mitigate() called right before untrusted 
> seccomp code is executed? So why are we disabling the mitigation here?

It disables the CPU speculation misfeature not the mitigation. And no, we
are not going to change it because the constants are user space ABI today.

Thanks,

	tglx


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ