linux-kernel - Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel

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: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1801040118200.27010@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 01:19:22 +0100 (CET)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
        dwmw@...zon.co.uk, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel

On Wed, 3 Jan 2018, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > It should be a CPU_BUG bit as we have for the other mess. And that can be
> > used for patching.
> 
> It has to be done at compile time because it requires a compiler option.

If gcc anotates indirect calls/jumps in a way that we could patch them 
using alternatives in runtime, that'd be enough.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs