[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ad2e4bc5-26cb-c225-e869-0621fd0c9a7c@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:32:01 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>
Cc: "tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"gregkh@...ux-foundation.org" <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel
On 04/01/2018 15:51, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Where have you got this idea from? Using IBPB on every mode switch
> would be an insane overhead to take, and isn't necessary.
IIRC it started as a paranoia mode for AMD, but then we found out it was
actually faster than IBRS on some Intel processor where IBRS performance
was horrible. But I don't remember the details of the performance
testing, sorry.
Paolo
> Also, remember that PTI and these mitigations are for orthogonal issues.
>
> Perhaps it is easiest to refer directly to the Xen SP2 mitigations and
> my commentary of what is going on:
> http://xenbits.xen.org/gitweb/?p=people/andrewcoop/xen.git;a=blob;f=xen/arch/x86/spec_ctrl.c;h=79aedf774a390293dfd564ce978500085344e305;hb=refs/heads/sp2-mitigations-v6.5#l192
>
> With the GCC -mindirect-branch=thunk-external support, and microcode,
> Xen will make a boot-time choice between using Retpoline, Lfence (which
> is the better AMD option, and more performant than retpoline), or IBRS
> on Skylake and newer processors where it is strictly necessary, as well
> as using IBPB whenever available.
>
> It also supports virtualising IBRS for guest usage when the kernel has
> chosen not to use it; a configuration I haven't seen in any of the Linux
> patch series thusfar.
>
> ~Andrew
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists