linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/speculation: Don't inherit TIF

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: <c2384e8e-619e-fd05-cfd3-8dc593439ea9@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:46:39 -0500
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, x86@...nel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/speculation: Don't inherit TIF_SSBD on execve()

On 01/11/2019 02:52 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> With the default SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_SECCOMP/SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_PRCTL mode,
>> the TIF_SSBD bit will be inherited when a new task is fork'ed or cloned.
>>
>> As only certain class of applications (like Java) requires disabling
>> speculative store bypass for security purpose, it may not make sense to
>> allow the TIF_SSBD bit to be inherited across execve() boundary where the
>> new application may not need SSBD at all and is probably not aware that
>> SSBD may have been turned on. This may cause an unnecessary performance
>> loss of up to 20% in some cases.
> Lot's of MAY's here. Aside of that this fundamentally changes the
> behaviour. I'm not really a fan of doing that.
>
> If there are good reasons to have a non-inherited variant, then we rather
> introduce that instead of changing the existing semantics without a way for
> existing userspace to notice.

I understand your point. How about adding a ",noexec" auxillary option
to the spec_store_bypass_disable command line to activate this new
behavior without changing the default. Will that be acceptable?

Cheers,
Longman