linux-kernel - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+8MBbKqeAFjoqq4G-A8pjDdHoVvXqG1Jv+Q4DTu2ZgZ1Gxvjg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:36:02 -0800
From:   Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, dwmw@...zon.co.uk,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
        casey.schaufler@...el.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86-ML <x86@...nel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: STIBP by default.. Revert?

On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 2:19 PM Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
> Which gets us back to Tim's fixup patch. Do you still prefer the revert,
> given the existence of that? I think that if Tim's fixup makes it through
> (it's currently missing SECCOMP handling, but that is trivial to add on
> top), it might be the best compromise. We'd also have have to make IBPB
> obey it to be consistent (and get even a few more % of performance back),
> but that's easy as well.

+1 for Tim's patch.  That make us more consistent with how we handled
L1TF (giving the system owner a control knob to decide whether they
want this level of fixup, based on their own analysis of their vulnerability).

-Tony