linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Introduce support for PSF mitigation

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: <20210409164554.w2xtazch5jkivou6@treble>
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:45:54 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     "Saripalli, RK" <rsaripal@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Introduce support for PSF mitigation

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:56:47AM -0500, Saripalli, RK wrote:
> Josh, thank you for taking the time to review the patches.
> 
> On 4/7/2021 5:39 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 10:49:59AM -0500, Ramakrishna Saripalli wrote:
> >> Because PSF speculation is limited to the current program context,
> >> the impact of bad PSF speculation is very similar to that of
> >> Speculative Store Bypass (Spectre v4)
> >>
> >> Predictive Store Forwarding controls:
> >> There are two hardware control bits which influence the PSF feature:
> >> - MSR 48h bit 2 – Speculative Store Bypass (SSBD)
> >> - MSR 48h bit 7 – Predictive Store Forwarding Disable (PSFD)
> >>
> >> The PSF feature is disabled if either of these bits are set.  These bits
> >> are controllable on a per-thread basis in an SMT system. By default, both
> >> SSBD and PSFD are 0 meaning that the speculation features are enabled.
> >>
> >> While the SSBD bit disables PSF and speculative store bypass, PSFD only
> >> disables PSF.
> >>
> >> PSFD may be desirable for software which is concerned with the
> >> speculative behavior of PSF but desires a smaller performance impact than
> >> setting SSBD.
> > 
> > Hi Ramakrishna,
> > 
> > Is there a realistic scenario where an application would want to disable
> > PSF, but not disable SSB?
> 
> It is possible most applications have been reviewed and scrubbed for
> SSB-type attacks but PSF-type issues may not have been looked at yet.

It's "possible", but is it realistic?  As far as I know, SSB is
impractical to scrub an application for.

Do we know of any real-world cases where this option is needed?

-- 
Josh