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: <05f366bb-8f1b-598e-2ca5-2a05e7a1be73@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Nov 2018 14:55:26 -0800
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: STIBP by default.. Revert?

On 11/18/2018 02:36 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 2:17 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 don't think the code needs to be reverted, but the *behavior* of
> just unconditionally enabling STIBP needs to be reverted.

Yes, in the patchset I proposed on top of Jiri's, the default will
be enabling STIBP only for tasks that ask for STIBP via prctl or
those that are non-dumpable, like sshd.

> 
> Because it was clearly way more expensive than people were told.

I did realize the performance implications of making STIBP on for
all tasks.  Here's to recap performance impact of STIBP when I posted
my patchset:

"...leaving STIBP on all the time is expensive for certain
applications that have frequent indirect branches. One such application
is perlbench in the SpecInt Rate 2006 test suite which shows a
21% reduction in throughput."

I think if we include Jiri's patchset for 4.20, we should have
my patchset also included to avoid the performance impact on
regular tasks but still allow admin and applications to turn on STIBP if needed.

Thanks.

Tim