linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Fill the RSB on context switch also on non-IBPB CPUs

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: <9f9d0c1f-a889-d2bc-e9d9-d4ef9d99770b@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:46:20 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Fill the RSB on context switch also on
 non-IBPB CPUs

On 03/21/2018 05:09 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
> As far as I understand the issue this should provide a good protection
> for userspace processes that were recompiled with retpolines as they
> won't have any indirect jumps and calls.

Instead of saying "good protection", let's just say that it could
mitigate attacks that require consumption of attacker-placed RSB entries.

>> Do you perhaps want to do RSB manipulation in lieu of IBPB when
>> switching *to* a non-dumpable process and IBPB is not available?
> 
> Is it worth differentiating such processes in this case?
> IBPB is supposed to be very expensive so certainly it is worthwhile
> to do it only for high-value processes (=non-dumpable).
> 
> However, it is unlikely that existing RSB entries from the previous
> task match the new task call stack anyway.
> We already do unconditional RSB-filling-on-context-switch in many
> cases.

I think this case is a bit too obscure and theoretical to complicate the
kernel with it.  You need an unmitigated processor, a
userspace-to-userspace attack that manages to satisfy the five "exploit
composition" steps of Spectre/V2[1], and an application that has been
retpoline-mitigated.

While RSB manipulation is almost certainly less onerous than IBPB, it's
still going to hurt context-switch rates, especially if applied
indiscriminately like this patch does.

So, I totally agree with your analysis about the theoretical potential
for an issue, I'm just not really convinced the fix is worth it.

1.
https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/1d/46/Retpoline-A-Branch-Target-Injection-Mitigation.pdf