[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1570212969-21888-14-git-send-email-chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:16:05 -0700
From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
luto@...nel.org
Cc: hpa@...or.com, dave.hansen@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
chang.seok.bae@...el.com
Subject: [PATCH v9 13/17] x86/speculation/swapgs: Check FSGSBASE in enabling SWAPGS mitigation
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Before enabling FSGSBASE the kernel could safely assume that the content
of GS base was a user address. Thus any speculative access as the result
of a mispredicted branch controlling the execution of SWAPGS would be to
a user address. So systems with speculation-proof SMAP did not need to
add additional LFENCE instructions to mitigate.
With FSGSBASE enabled a hostile user can set GS base to a kernel address.
So they can make the kernel speculatively access data they wish to leak
via a side channel. This means that SMAP provides no protection.
Add FSGSBASE as an additional condition to enable the fence-based SWAPGS
mitigation.
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
---
Changes from v8: none
Changes from v7:
* Included as a new patch.
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
index 91c2561..e06356f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
@@ -321,14 +321,12 @@ static void __init spectre_v1_select_mitigation(void)
* If FSGSBASE is enabled, the user can put a kernel address in
* GS, in which case SMAP provides no protection.
*
- * [ NOTE: Don't check for X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE until the
- * FSGSBASE enablement patches have been merged. ]
- *
* If FSGSBASE is disabled, the user can only put a user space
* address in GS. That makes an attack harder, but still
* possible if there's no SMAP protection.
*/
- if (!smap_works_speculatively()) {
+ if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE) ||
+ !smap_works_speculatively()) {
/*
* Mitigation can be provided from SWAPGS itself or
* PTI as the CR3 write in the Meltdown mitigation
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists