linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] x86: enable Data Operand Independent Timing Mode

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]

Message-ID: <ba4420b1-ea8c-d75d-2c4a-f0e7a6d01c6b@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 08:15:16 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Roxana Bradescu <roxabee@...omium.org>,
        Adam Langley <agl@...gle.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: enable Data Operand Independent Timing Mode

On 1/25/23 07:29, Dave Hansen wrote:
> There's another part here which I think was recently added to the
> documentation:
> 
> 	Intel expects the performance impact of this mode may be
> 	significantly higher on future processors. 
> 
> That's _meant_ to be really scary and keep folks from turning this on by
> default, aka. what this patch does.  Your new CPU will be really slow if
> you turn this on!  Boo!

*If* we go forward with this patch's approach in the kernel, I think we
should at least consider what the kernel will do in a future where there
are two classes of systems:

	1. Ice Lake era ones where DOITM=1 is cheap enough that it can
	   on by default.
	2. "Future processors" where DOITM=1 by default is too costly.

Maybe for #2 we set DOITM=0 in the kernel.  Maybe we add per-task
controls.

But, there *is* DOITM cost where the large fleets are going to be
tempted to turn it off somehow, somewhere.  The kernel will be better
off if we can design that in now.