linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v5 11/16] x86/speculation: Add Spectre v2 app to app protection modes

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: <4d102977-f516-e0b3-b728-e318e36c1449@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:33:08 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 11/16] x86/speculation: Add Spectre v2 app to app
 protection modes

On 11/19/18 11:32 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The specs don't say if by making it immune from BTB mistraining, it
> also could prevent to mistrain the BTB in order to attack what's
> outside the SECCOMP jail. Probably it won't and I doubt we can rely on
> it even if some implementation could do that.

I just talked with Andi and Tim about this.  The *current* spec for
STIBP[1] states that it bidirectional: setting it on one thread provides
mitigation against any threads attacking any other thread on the core.

This means that it provides protection for victims being in and out of
SECCOMP jail when the attacker is either in or out of SECCOMP jail.

However, the current spec[1], differs from the *original* spec PDF that
Intel released last year.  Both are correct in that they describe all
current (Intel) implementations of STIBP.  However, the new
_description_ of STIBP is stronger than it was originally.

Here's the current description:

> Setting ... STIBP ... on a logical processor prevents the predicted
> targets of indirect branches on any logical processor of that core
> from being controlled by software that executes (or executed
> previously) on another logical processor of the same core.

1.
https://software.intel.com/security-software-guidance/insights/deep-dive-single-thread-indirect-branch-predictors