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: <cc2711b0-0278-986f-0fe9-9a993506c47d@amd.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:00:11 -0600
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "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 1/4/2018 10:15 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-04 at 15:29 +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I need to pull in the AMD lfence alternative for retpoline, giving us a
>> 3-way choice of the existing retpoline thunk, "lfence; jmp *%\reg", and
>> a bare "jmp *%\reg".
> 
> I think I can abuse X86_FEATURE_SYSCALL for that, right? So it would
> look something like this:
> 
>  --- a/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/retpoline.S
> @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
>  
>  ENTRY(__x86.indirect_thunk.\reg)
>         CFI_STARTPROC
> -       ALTERNATIVE "call 2f", __stringify(jmp *%\reg), X86_BUG_NO_RETPOLINE
> +       ALTERNATIVE_2 "call 2f", __stringify(lfence;jmp *%\reg), X86_FEATURE_SYSCALL, __stringify(jmp *%\reg), X86_BUG_NO_RETPOLINE
>  1:
>         lfence
>         ASM_UNREACHABLE
> 
> 
> However, I would very much like to see a categorical statement from AMD
> that the lfence is sufficient in all cases. Remember, Intel were saying
> that too for a while, before finding that it was not *quite* good
> enough.

Yes, lfence is sufficient.  As long as the target is in the register
before the lfence and we jump through the register all is good, i.e.:

Include a dispatch serializing instruction after the load of an indirect
branch target. For instance, change this code:

1: jmp *[rax] ; jump to address pointed to by RAX

To this:

1: mov [rax], rax ; load target address
2: lfence ; dispatch serializing instruction
3: jmp *rax

The processor will stop dispatching instructions until all older
instructions have returned their results and are capable of being retired
by the processor. At this point the branch target will be in the general
purpose register (rax in this example) and available at dispatch for
execution such that the speculative execution window is not large enough
to be exploited.

Thanks,
Tom

>