[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74fd9c82-cd18-562b-8df6-69f629da460b@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:25:26 -0800
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, karahmed@...zon.de, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
pbonzini@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, linux@...inikbrodowski.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Use Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier
in context switch
On 01/30/2018 02:43 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 02:26:53PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>> If the process has multiple threads running on different cpus,
>
> I'm talking about issuing the barrier in set_dumpable(). What threads on
> multiple CPUs?
>
As dumpable is a property in mm->flags, it affects all threads running on other cpus sharing
the same mm. If you issue IBPB only on the cpu that perform the set_dumpable(),
the theoretical hole you are trying to close still exist on threads running on
other cpu.
time ----->
(cpu A) set_dumpable victim (thread1), issue IBPB
(cpu B) attacker -> victim (thread2), missed IBPB -> attacker -> victim (IBPB issued)
That said, I think the risk is minuscule and is not worth the cost to set IBPB on the other cpus.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists