linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 27/28] x86/speculation: Add seccomp Spectre v2 user space protection mode

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.7.76.1812040937440.17216@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date:   Tue, 4 Dec 2018 09:39:27 +0100 (CET)
From:   Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        "Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        "Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>, jcm@...hat.com,
        longman9394@...il.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        david.c.stewart@...el.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jason Brandt <jason.w.brandt@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 27/28] x86/speculation: Add seccomp Spectre v2 user
 space protection mode

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Tim Chen wrote:

> > Can we please just fix this stupid lie?
> > 
> > Yes, Intel calls it "STIBP" and tries to make it out to be about the
> > indirect branch predictor being per-SMT thread.
> > 
> > But the reason it is unacceptable is apparently because in reality it just
> > disables indirect branch prediction entirely. So yes, *technically* it's
> > true that that limits indirect branch prediction to just a single SMT
> > core, but in reality it is just a "go really slow" mode.
> > 
> > If STIBP had actually just keyed off the logical SMT thread, we wouldn't
> > need to have worried about it in the first place.
> > 
> > So let's document reality rather than Intel's Pollyanna world-view.
> > 
> > Reality matters. It's why we had to go all this. Lying about things
> > and making it appear like it's not a big deal was why the original
> > patch made it through without people noticing.
> > 
> 
> 
> To make the usage of STIBP and its working principles clear,
> here are some additional explanations of STIBP from our Intel
> HW architects.  This should also help answer some of the questions
> from Thomas and others on STIBP's usages with IBPB and IBRS.

Thanks a lot, this indeed does shed some light.

I have one question though:

[ ... snip ... ]
> On processors with enhanced IBRS support, we recommend setting IBRS to 1
> and left set. 

Then why doesn't CPU with EIBRS support acutally *default* to '1', with 
opt-out possibility for OS?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs