linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Retpoline: Binary mitigation for branch-target-injection (aka "Spectre")

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: <1515058213.12987.89.camel@amazon.co.uk>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 09:30:13 +0000
From:   "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
To:     Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...el.com>, <tglx@...uxtronix.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Retpoline: Binary mitigation for branch-target-injection
 (aka "Spectre")

On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 01:10 -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> Apologies for the discombobulation around today's disclosure.  Obviously the
> original goal was to communicate this a little more coherently, but the
> unscheduled advances in the disclosure disrupted the efforts to pull this
> together more cleanly.
> 
> I wanted to open discussion the "retpoline" approach and and define its
> requirements so that we can separate the core
> details from questions regarding any particular implementation thereof.
> 
> As a starting point, a full write-up describing the approach is available at:
>   https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/7625886

Note that (ab)using 'ret' in this way is incompatible with CET on
upcoming processors. HJ added a -mno-indirect-branch-register option to
the latest round of GCC patches, which puts the branch target in a
register instead of on the stack. My kernel patches (which I'm about to
reconcile with Andi's tweaks and post) do the same.

That means that in the cases where at runtime we want to ALTERNATIVE
out the retpoline, it just turns back into a bare 'jmp *\reg'.


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5210 bytes)