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: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1801040221070.27010@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 02:27:54 +0100 (CET)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and
 nospec_barrier

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Alan Cox wrote:

> There are people trying to tune coverity and other tool rules to identify
> cases, 

Yeah, but that (and *especially* Coverity) is so inconvenient to be 
applied to each and every patch ... that this is not the way to go.

If the CPU speculation can cause these kinds of side-effects, it just must 
not happen, full stop. OS trying to work it around is just a whack-a-mole 
(which we can apply for old silicon, sure ... but not something that 
becomes a new standard) that's never going to lead to any ultimate 
solution.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs