linux-kernel - STIBP by default.. Revert?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg-9FUGU=grF4gKDq1sm1m39Jbs3A_iyLbSSntU47ncwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Nov 2018 12:36:08 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>
Cc:     Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: STIBP by default.. Revert?

This was marked for stable, and honestly, nowhere in the discussion
did I see any mention of just *how* bad the performance impact of this
was.

When performance goes down by 50% on some loads, people need to start
asking themselves whether it was worth it. It's apparently better to
just disable SMT entirely, which is what security-conscious people do
anyway.

So why do that STIBP slow-down by default when the people who *really*
care already disabled SMT?

I think we should use the same logic as for L1TF: we default to
something that doesn't kill performance. Warn once about it, and let
the  crazy people say "I'd rather take a 50% performance hit than
worry about a theoretical issue".

                  Linus