linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Mitigate eIBRS PBRSB predictions with WRMSR

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: <a056259f338e411581b882555ed608cb@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2022 08:25:15 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Jim Mattson' <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@...zon.com>
CC:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sjitindarsingh@...il.com" <sjitindarsingh@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        "daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com" <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
        "pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com" 
        <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        "benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Mitigate eIBRS PBRSB predictions with
 WRMSR

From: Jim Mattson
> Sent: 05 October 2022 23:29
> 
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 3:03 PM Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@...zon.com> wrote:
> >
> > tl;dr: The existing mitigation for eIBRS PBRSB predictions uses an INT3 to
> > ensure a call instruction retires before a following unbalanced RET. Replace
> > this with a WRMSR serialising instruction which has a lower performance
> > penalty.
> 
> The INT3 is only on a speculative path and should not impact performance.

Doesn't that depend on how quickly the cpu can abort the
decode and execution of the INT3 instruction?
INT3 is bound to generate a lot of uops and/or be microcoded.

Old cpu couldn't abort fpu instructions.
IIRC the Intel performance guide even suggested not interleaving
code and data because the data might get speculatively executed
and take a long time to abort.

I actually wonder whether 'JMPS .' (eb fe) shouldn't be used
instead of INT3 (cc) because it is fast to decode and execute.
But I'm no expect here.

	David

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