linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Fix up "virtual" IBRS/IBPB/STIBP feature bits on Intel

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: <1517324247.18619.126.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:57:27 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, karahmed@...zon.de,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Fix up "virtual" IBRS/IBPB/STIBP feature
 bits on Intel

On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 14:54 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> The only case I can think of where you'd get a non boot processor that
> didn't have the same microcode loaded as the rest on entry to the OS would
> be in a system where it was possibly to phyically hot plug processors
> post boot.
> 
> There are not many such systems and it may be that all of them do
> sufficient deeply unmentionable things in their firmware to cover this.

We've got a patch lurking somewhere to properly collect the return code
from microcode loading on all CPUs, because we've seen it *fail* on one
CPU. Leaving them inconsistent, and on a kexec after that we really
*did* see the boot CPU with IBRS support and a secondary without it.

But really, my point in this patch was not that I expect all this to
work nicely, but that I don't want to make things *worse* by using
setup_force_cpu_cap() when really I only want to set the bit for *this*
CPU.

I'm *all* for ditching the per-CPU bitmasks since they're largely
pointless and we've applied alternatives before the secondaries are
brought up anyway. It's just a rabbithole I didn't need to go down
today.
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)