[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fb2b5589-e14c-470e-2de0-d9da1667bace@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:37:35 -0600
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To: "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 09/10] x86/enter: Create macros to restrict/unrestrict
Indirect Branch Speculation
On 1/23/2018 10:20 AM, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 10:12 -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>
>>>> +.macro UNRESTRICT_IB_SPEC
>>>> + ALTERNATIVE "jmp .Lskip_\@", "", X86_FEATURE_IBRS
>>>> + PUSH_MSR_REGS
>>>> + WRMSR_ASM $MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, $0, $0
>>>
>> I think you should be writing 2, not 0, since I'm reasonably
>> confident that we want STIBP on. Can you explain why you're writing
>> 0?
>>
>> Do we want to talk about STIBP in general? Should it be (yet another)
>> boot option to enable or disable? If there is STIBP support without
>> IBRS support, it could be a set and forget at boot time.
>
> We haven't got patches which enable STIBP in general. The kernel itself
> is safe either way with retpoline, or because IBRS implies STIBP too
> (that is, there's no difference between writing 1 and 3).
>
> So STIBP is purely about protecting userspace processes from one
> another, and VM guests from one another, when they run on HT siblings.
>
> There's an argument that there are so many other information leaks
> between HT siblings that we might not care. Especially as it's hard to
> *tell* when you're scheduling, whether you trust all the processes (or
> guests) on your HT siblings right now... let alone later when
> scheduling another process if you need to *now* set STIBP on a sibling
> which is no longer save from this process now running.
>
> I'm not sure we want to set STIBP *unconditionally* either because of
> the performance implications.
>
> For IBRS we had an answer and it was just ugly. For STIBP we don't
> actually have an answer for "how do we use this?". Do we?
Not sure. Maybe to start, the answer might be to allow it to be set for
the ultra-paranoid, but in general don't enable it by default. Having it
enabled would be an alternative to someone deciding to disable SMT, since
that would have even more of a performance impact.
Thanks,
Tom
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists