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]

Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:25:56 -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>,
        Pawan Kumar Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...el.com>,
        Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: enable Data Operand Independent Timing Mode

BTW, I'm basically moving forward assuming that we're going to apply
this patch in _some_ form.  I'm going to make some changes, but I'll
discuss them in this thread to make sure we're all on the same page first.

On 1/24/23 17:28, Eric Biggers wrote:
> +Affected CPUs
> +-------------
> +
> +This vulnerability affects Intel Core family processors based on the Ice Lake
> +and later microarchitectures, and Intel Atom family processors based on the
> +Gracemont and later microarchitectures.  For more information, see Intel's
> +documentation [1]_.

I had a hard time following the docs in this area.

But I'm not sure this statement is correct.  The docs actually say:

	For Intel® Core™ family processors based on microarchitectures
	before Ice Lake and Intel Atom® family processors based on
	microarchitectures before Gracemont that do not enumerate
	IA32_UARCH_MISC_CTL, developers may assume that the instructions
	listed here operate as if DOITM is enabled.

A processor needs to be before "Ice Lake" and friends *AND* not
enumerate IA32_UARCH_MISC_CTL to be unaffected.

There's also another tweak that's needed because:

	Processors that do not enumerate IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES[DOITM]
	when the latest microcode is applied do not need to set
	IA32_UARCH_MISC_CTL [DOITM] in order to have the behavior
	described in this document...

First, we need to mention the "latest microcode" thing in the kernel
docs.  I also _think_ the whole "microarchitectures before" stuff is
rather irrelevant and we can simplify this down to:

	This vulnerability affects all Intel processors that support
	MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES and set MSR_IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES[DOITM]
	when the latest microcode is applied.

Which reminds me.  This:

> +void update_doitm_msr(void)
> +{
> +	u64 msr;
> +
> +	if (doitm_off)
> +		return;
> +
> +	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_UARCH_MISC_CTL, msr);
> +	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_UARCH_MISC_CTL, msr | UARCH_MISC_DOITM);
> +}

should probably be:

void update_doitm_msr(void)
{
	u64 msr;

	/*
	 * All processors that enumerate support for DOIT
	 * are affected *and* have the mitigation available.
	 */
	if (!boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_DODT))
		return;

	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_UARCH_MISC_CTL, msr);
	if (doitm_off)
		msr &= ~UARCH_MISC_DOITM;
	else
		msr |= UARCH_MISC_DOITM;
	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_UARCH_MISC_CTL, msr);
}

in case the CPU isn't actually coming out of reset, like if kexec() left
DOITM=1.