linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86/cpufeatures: Define feature bits to support mitigation of PSF

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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 14:45:23 -0500
From:   "Saripalli, RK" <rsaripal@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86/cpufeatures: Define feature bits to support
 mitigation of PSF

Boris, thank you.

On 4/9/2021 2:39 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:22:49PM -0500, Saripalli, RK wrote:
>>> And I think you don't need this one either if we do a "light" controls
>>> thing but lemme look at the rest first.
> 
> Ok, and what I mean with "lite" version is something like this below
> which needs finishing and testing.
> 
> Initially, it could support the cmdline params:
> 
> predict_store_fwd={on,off,auto}
> 
> to give people the opportunity to experiment with the feature.
> 
> If it turns out that prctl and seccomp per-task toggling is needed then
> sure, we can extend but I don't see the reason for a whole separate set
> of options yet. Especially is ssbd already controls this.
> 
> AFAICT, of course and if I'm not missing some other aspect here.
> 
> Thx.

Yes, these options should be fine for now.
Like you said, if we get the need to add prctl and seccomp, I can always do that later.

What do you think auto should default to?. 
In SSBD case, I believe auto defaults to prctl or seccomp.
Since we will not have that here, we should choose something for auto.


> 
> ---
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> index 2d11384dc9ab..226b73700f88 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> @@ -1165,3 +1165,22 @@ void set_dr_addr_mask(unsigned long mask, int dr)
>  		break;
>  	}
>  }
> +
> +static int __init psf_cmdline(char *str)
> +{
> +	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PSFD))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	if (!str)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (!strcmp(str, "off")) {
> +		x86_spec_ctrl_base |= SPEC_CTRL_PSFD;
> +		setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_PSFD);
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +early_param("predict_store_fwd", psf_cmdline);
> +
> +
> 

All the other mitigation x86 mitigation code goes into kernel/cpu/bugs.c.
I think psf_cmdline() or equivalent also belongs there and not in kernel/cpu/amd.c.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Thanks,
RK