linux-kernel - RE: Do we need to do anything about "dead µops?"

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:   Tue, 4 May 2021 13:06:06 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Josh Poimboeuf' <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@....com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Jann Horn" <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: Do we need to do anything about "dead µops?"

From: Josh Poimboeuf
> Sent: 04 May 2021 04:16
...
> I was actually thinking more along the lines of
> 
> 	val = 0;
> 
> 	if (user_supplied_idx < ARRAY_SIZE) // trained to speculatively be 'true'
> 		val = boring_non_secret_array[user_supplied_idx];
> 
> 	if (val & 1)
> 		do_something();
> 
> In other words, the victim code wouldn't be accessing the secret
> intentionally.  So there's no reason for it to avoid doing
> data-dependent branches.

Isn't that one of the very boring standard spectre cases?

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)