linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and nospec

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: <20180104225515.13a40f0f@alans-desktop>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 22:55:15 +0000
From:   Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and nospec_barrier

> and the *implementation* might be architecture-specific, but one
> particular implementation would be something like simply
> 
> #define array_access(base, idx, max) ({                         \
>         union { typeof(base[0]) _val; unsigned long _bit; } __u;\
>         unsigned long _i = (idx);                               \
>         unsigned long _m = (max);                               \
>         unsigned long _mask = _i < _m ? ~0 : 0;                 \
>         OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(_mask);                              \
>         __u._val = base[_i & _mask];                            \
>         __u._bit &= _mask;                                      \
>         __u._val; })
> 
> (Ok, the above is not exhaustively tested, but you get the idea, and
> gcc doesn't seem to mess it up *too* badly).

How do you ensure that the CPU doesn't speculate j < _m  ? ~0 : 0 pick the
wrong mask and then reference base[] ?

It's a nice idea but I think we'd need to run it past the various CPU
vendors especially before it was implemented as a generic solution.
Anding with a constant works because the constant doesn't get speculated
and nor does the and with a constant, but you've got a whole additional
conditional path in your macro.

Alan