linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Fix up l1ft documentation was Re: Taking a break

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: <20190311102109.GA14118@amd>
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:21:10 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, corbet@....net
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@...ian.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix up l1ft documentation was Re: Taking a break - time
 to look back

Ping? Jonathan, can you pick this up?

								Pavel

On Thu 2019-01-03 00:51:52, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > The next round of speculation-related issues including the scary L1TF
> > hardware bug was a way more "pleasant" experience to work on. While for
> > obvious reasons the mitigation development happened behind closed doors in
> > a smaller group of people, we were at least able to collaborate in a way
> > which is somehow close to what we are used to.
> 
> Ok, I guess L1TF was a lot of fun, and there was not time for a good
> documentation.
> 
> There's admin guide that is written as an advertisment, and
> unfortunately is slightly "inaccurate" at places (to the point of
> lying).
> 
> Plus, I believe it should go to x86/ directory, as this is really
> Intel issue, and not anything ARM (or RISC-V) people need to
> know. (But we already have some urls in printk messages that may need
> fixing up..?)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/l1tf.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/l1tf.rst
> index b85dd80..05c5422 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/l1tf.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/l1tf.rst
> @@ -1,10 +1,11 @@
>  L1TF - L1 Terminal Fault
>  ========================
>  
> -L1 Terminal Fault is a hardware vulnerability which allows unprivileged
> -speculative access to data which is available in the Level 1 Data Cache
> -when the page table entry controlling the virtual address, which is used
> -for the access, has the Present bit cleared or other reserved bits set.
> +L1 Terminal Fault is a hardware vulnerability on most recent Intel x86
> +CPUs which allows unprivileged speculative access to data which is
> +available in the Level 1 Data Cache when the page table entry
> +controlling the virtual address, which is used for the access, has the
> +Present bit cleared or other reserved bits set.
>  
>  Affected processors
>  -------------------
> @@ -76,12 +77,14 @@ Attack scenarios
>     deterministic and more practical.
>  
>     The Linux kernel contains a mitigation for this attack vector, PTE
> -   inversion, which is permanently enabled and has no performance
> -   impact. The kernel ensures that the address bits of PTEs, which are not
> -   marked present, never point to cacheable physical memory space.
> +   inversion, which is permanently enabled and has no measurable
> +   performance impact in most configurations. The kernel ensures that
> +   the address bits of PTEs, which are not marked present, never point
> +   to cacheable physical memory space. On x86-32, this physical memory
> +   needs to be limited to 2GiB to make mitigation effective.
>  
> -   A system with an up to date kernel is protected against attacks from
> -   malicious user space applications.
> +   Mitigation is present in kernels v4.19 and newer, and in
> +   recent -stable kernels.
>  
>  2. Malicious guest in a virtual machine
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> @@ -405,6 +408,9 @@ time with the option "l1tf=". The valid arguments for this option are:
>  
>    off		Disables hypervisor mitigations and doesn't emit any
>  		warnings.
> +		It also drops the swap size and available RAM limit restrictions
> +		on both hypervisor and bare metal.
> +
>    ============  =============================================================
>  
>  The default is 'flush'. For details about L1D flushing see :ref:`l1d_flush`.
> @@ -576,7 +582,8 @@ Default mitigations
>    The kernel default mitigations for vulnerable processors are:
>  
>    - PTE inversion to protect against malicious user space. This is done
> -    unconditionally and cannot be controlled.
> +    unconditionally and cannot be controlled. The swap storage is limited
> +    to ~16TB.
>  
>    - L1D conditional flushing on VMENTER when EPT is enabled for
>      a guest.
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)