linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support

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: <20180108212046.3wkqerxkellnqudy@treble>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 15:20:46 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, 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>,
        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: [PATCH v6 01/10] x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support

On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:26:11PM -0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:46:32PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 10:11:16PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile
> >> > > index a20eacd..918e550 100644
> >> > > --- a/arch/x86/Makefile
> >> > > +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile
> >> > > @@ -235,6 +235,16 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += -Wno-sign-compare
> >> > >  #
> >> > >  KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> >> > >
> >> > > +# Avoid indirect branches in kernel to deal with Spectre
> >> > > +ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE
> >> > > +    RETPOLINE_CFLAGS += $(call
> >> cc-option,-mindirect-branch=thunk-extern -mindirect-branch-register)
> >> > > +    ifneq ($(RETPOLINE_CFLAGS),)
> >> > > +        KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(RETPOLINE_CFLAGS) -DRETPOLINE
> >> > > +    else
> >> > > +        $(warning Retpoline not supported in compiler. System may
> >> be insecure.)
> >> > > +    endif
> >> > > +endif
> >> >
> >> > I wonder if an error might be more appropriate than a warning.  I
> >> > learned from experience that a lot of people don't see these Makefile
> >> > warnings, and this would be a dangerous one to miss.
> >> >
> >> > Also if this were an error, you could get rid of the RETPOLINE define,
> >> > and that would be one less define cluttering up the already
> >> way-too-long
> >> > GCC arg list.
> >>
> >> It still allows to get the ASM part covered. If that's worth it I can't
> >> tell.
> >
> > If there's a makefile error above, then CONFIG_RETPOLINE would already
> > imply compiler support, so the ASM code with the new '%V' option could
> > just do 'ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE'.
> 
> I did look at ditching the -DRETPOLINE but there is benefit in doing the
> sys_call_table jump even when GCC isn't updated. So I put it back.

What benefit is that?  Doesn't it give the user a false sense of
security, since there's no shortage of other indirect branches to
attack?

-- 
Josh