netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation

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, 10 Jan 2018 19:47:33 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: prevent out-of-bounds speculation

Hi again Linus, Alexei,

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:21:29AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:49:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In this particular case, we should be very much aware of future CPU's
> > being more _constrained_, because CPU vendors had better start taking
> > this thing into account.
> > 
> > So the masking approach is FUNDAMENTALLY SAFER than the "let's try to
> > limit control speculation".
> > 
> > If somebody can point to a CPU that actually speculates across an
> > address masking operation, I will be very surprised. And unless you
> > can point to that, then stop trying to dismiss the masking approach.
> 
> Whilst I agree with your comments about future CPUs, this stuff is further
> out of academia than you might think. We're definitely erring on the
> belt-and-braces side of things at the moment, so let me go check what's
> *actually* been built and I suspect we'll be able to make the masking work.
> 
> Stay tuned...

I can happily confirm that there aren't any (ARM architecture) CPUs where
the masking approach is not sufficient, so there's no need to worry about
value speculation breaking this.

Will