linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] x86/cpufeature: Blacklist SPEC

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801251557490.2020@nanos>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:58:35 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
cc:     arjan@...ux.intel.com, karahmed@...zon.de, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        bp@...en8.de, peterz@...radead.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        gregkh@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, ashok.raj@...el.com, mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] x86/cpufeature: Blacklist SPEC_CTRL on early
 Spectre v2 microcodes

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 12:34 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > This stuff is really a master piece of trainwreck engineering.
> > 
> > So yeah, whatever we do we end up with a proper mess. Lets go for a
> > blacklist and hope that we'll have something which holds at some
> > foreseeable day in the future.
> > 
> > The other concern I have is IBRS vs. IBPB. Are we sufficiently sure that
> > IBPB is working on those IBRS blacklisted ucode revisions? Or should we
> > just play safe and not touch any of this at all when we detect a
> > blacklisted one?
> 
> That isn't sufficiently clear to me. I've changed it back to blacklist
> *everything* for now, to be safe. If at any point Intel want to get
> their act together and give us coherent information to the contrary, we
> can change to separate IBPB/IBRS blacklists.

Thanks for that. That's the only sensible approach as long as we have to
deal with the current Quality Assumptions...

Thanks,

	tglx