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: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1801040243300.11852@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 02:47:51 +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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and
 nospec_barrier

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018, Alan Cox wrote:

> > If the CPU speculation can cause these kinds of side-effects, it just must 
> > not happen, full stop. 
> 
> At which point your performance will resemble that of a 2012 atom
> processor at best.

You know what? I'd be completely fine with that, if it's traded for "my 
ssh and internet banking keys are JUST MINE, ok?" :)

> Clearly if the CPU must be told then C is going to have to grow some
> syntax for it and some other languages are going to see 'taint' moving
> from a purely software construct to a real processor one.

Again, what is the problem with "yeah, it turned out to speed things up in 
the past, but hey, it has security issues, so we stopped doing it" 
aproach?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs