linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] Retpoline: 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: <CAPM31RLbtr2Nc7N5jcVm1F+RYPtsbrQs2u8rFvAhZf4bf55Fnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 03:25:25 -0800
From:   Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.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>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] Retpoline: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel

For Intel the manuals state that it's 16 entries -- 2.5.2.1
Agner also reports 16 (presumably experimentally measured)  e.g.
http://www.agner.org/optimize/microarchitecture.pdf [3.8]
For AMD it can be larger, for example 32 entries on Fam17h (but 16
entries on Fam16h).

For future proofing a binary, or a new AMD processor, 32 calls are
required.  I would suggest tuning this based on the current CPU (which
also covers the future case while saving cycles now) to save overhead.



On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:16 AM, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
> On 08/01/18 10:42, Paul Turner wrote:
>> A sequence for efficiently refilling the RSB is:
>>     mov $8, %rax;
>>     .align 16;
>>    3: call 4f;
>>   3p: pause; call 3p;
>>      .align 16;
>>   4: call 5f;
>>   4p: pause; call 4p;
>>      .align 16;
>>    5: dec %rax;
>>       jnz 3b;
>>       add $(16*8), %rsp;
>> This implementation uses 8 loops, with 2 calls per iteration.  This is
>> marginally faster than a single call per iteration.  We did not
>> observe useful benefit (particularly relative to text size) from
>> further unrolling.  This may also be usefully split into smaller (e.g.
>> 4 or 8 call)  segments where we can usefully pipeline/intermix with
>> other operations.  It includes retpoline type traps so that if an
>> entry is consumed, it cannot lead to controlled speculation.  On my
>> test system it took ~43 cycles on average.  Note that non-zero
>> displacement calls should be used as these may be optimized to not
>> interact with the RSB due to their use in fetching RIP for 32-bit
>> relocations.
>
> Guidance from both Intel and AMD still states that 32 calls are required
> in general.  Is your above code optimised for a specific processor which
> you know the RSB to be smaller on?
>
> ~Andrew