linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: Provide application property based STIBP protection

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: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1810021742540.14430@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:43:16 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: Provide application property based
 STIBP protection

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Jon Masters wrote:

> > This patch provides an application property based spectre_v2
> > protection with STIBP against attack from another app from
> > a sibling hyper-thread.  For security sensitive non-dumpable
> > app, STIBP will be turned on before switching to it for Intel
> > processors vulnerable to spectre_v2.
> 
> A general comment. I think in practice this will be similar to the
> speculative store buffer bypass (aka "variant 4") issue in terms of
> opt-in mitigation. Many users won't want to take the performance hit of
> having STIBP by default for peer threads. We should make sure that we
> don't force users into a mitigation but retain an option. Whether it's
> default-on or not can be debated, though I think the vendors lean toward
> having default-off with an opt-in, and customers will probably agree. So
> anyway, I encourage a pragmatic approach similar to that for SSBD.

Which is what Tim's patchset is implementing on top.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs