[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180905075913.GO24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:59:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/speculation: apply IBPB more strictly to
avoid cross-process data leak
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:18:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > if (tsk && tsk->mm &&
> > tsk->mm->context.ctx_id != last_ctx_id &&
> > - get_dumpable(tsk->mm) != SUID_DUMP_USER)
> > + ___ptrace_may_access(current, tsk, PTRACE_MODE_IBPB))
>
> Uurgh. If X86_FEATURE_USE_IBPB is not enabled, then the whole
> __ptrace_may_access() overhead is just done for nothing.
>
> > indirect_branch_prediction_barrier();
>
> This really wants to be runtime patched:
>
> if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_USE_IBPB))
> stop_speculation(tsk, last_ctx_id);
>
> and have an inline for that:
>
> static inline void stop_speculation(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 last_ctx_id)
> {
> if (tsk && tsk->mm && tsk->mm->context.ctx_id != last_ctx_id &&
> ___ptrace_may_access(current, tsk, PTRACE_MODE_IBPB))
> indirect_branch_prediction_barrier();
> }
>
> which also makes the whole mess readable.
How about something like:
if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_USE_IBPB) && need_ibpb(tsk, last_ctx_id))
indirect_branch_predictor_barrier();
where:
static inline bool need_ibpb(struct task_struct *next, u64 last_ctx_id)
{
return next && next->mm && next->mm->context.ctx_id != last_ctx_id &&
__ptrace_may_access(next, PTRACE_MODE_IBPB));
}
I don't much like "stop_speculation" for a name here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists