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]
Date:   Tue, 15 Jan 2019 10:48:48 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Waiman Long <>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,,
        LKML <>,,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Andi Kleen <>,
        David Woodhouse <>,
        Jiri Kosina <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Tim Chen <>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <>,
        Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/speculation: Don't inherit TIF_SSBD on

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 01/11/2019 02:52 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
> >
> >> 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?

I'd rather have an explicit PR_SPEC_DISABLE_NOEXEC argument for the PRCTL
so you can decide at the application level what kind of behaviour you want.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists