linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/speculation: Use Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier in context switch

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]

Date:   Sun, 4 Feb 2018 20:39:02 +0100
From:   Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        "Wieczorkiewicz, Pawel" <wipawel@...zon.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
        karahmed@...zon.de, x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
        luto@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/speculation: Use Indirect Branch Prediction
 Barrier in context switch

On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 08:31:53AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 08:03 +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > Whether a process needs protection by IBPB on context switches is a
> > different question to whether a process should be allowed to be dumped,
> > though the former may be a superset of the latter. Enable IBPB on all
> > context switches to a different userspace process, until we have a clear
> > mitigation strategy for userspace against Spectre-v2 designed and
> > implemented.
> >
> > ...
> >                 if (tsk && tsk->mm &&
> > -                   tsk->mm->context.ctx_id != last_ctx_id &&
> > -                   get_dumpable(tsk->mm) != SUID_DUMP_USER)
> > +                   tsk->mm->context.ctx_id != last_ctx_id)
> >                         indirect_branch_prediction_barrier();
> 
> 
> I understand your argument and I sympathise.
> 
> But that's going to hurt a *lot*, and we don't even have a viable
> proof-of-concept for a user←→user Spectre v2 attack, do we? It's only
> theoretical?

Wasn't the PoC in the Spectre paper user←→user (though on a different OS)?
And what makes KVM←→KVM so much more likely/dangerous/..., that IBPB will
be done there unconditionally (AFAICS)?


And, somewhat related, @Tim Chen:

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 03:25:44PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> For people who opt for more security, it is reasonable to consider
> alternate policies to distinguish friend and foe so we know if we are coming
> from a potentially hostile environment.  Ptrace is one means to do so, and probably
> there are other ways depending on usages.  I hope we can have a discussion on what we should
> use to determine if two processes are friend or foe.  Say do all the processes
> from the same containers are considered friends with each other?

To my understanding, the concept of "containers" is meant to be kept outside
of the kernel. What *namespaces* / *control groups* can be considered
friends with each other?


Thanks,
	Dominik