[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ4jAqDfSvdbNqMbmnQW6eyFj4qtknW1Wq_mm0kHUjOYyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 11:10:46 -0800
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pjt@...gle.com, evn@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org,
pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, kim.phillips@....com,
alexandre.chartre@...cle.com, daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com,
José Oliveira <joseloliveira11@...il.com>,
Rodrigo Branco <rodrigo@...nelhacking.com>,
Alexandra Sandulescu <aesa@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/speculation: Fix user-mode spectre-v2
protection with KERNEL_IBRS
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:02 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 10:56:38AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
> > Sure, it looks like an omission to me, we wrote a POC on Skylake that
> > was able to do cross-thread training with the current set of
> > mitigations.
>
> Right.
>
> > STIBP with IBRS is still correct if spectre_v2=ibrs had really meant
> > IBRS everywhere,
>
> Yeah, IBRS everywhere got shot down as a no-no very early in the game,
> for apparent reasons.
As you said in the other thread, this needs to be documented both in
the code and the kernel documentation.
>
> > but just means KERNEL_IBRS, which means only kernel is protected,
> > userspace is still unprotected.
>
> Yes, that was always the intent with IBRS: enable on kernel entry and
> disable on exit.
>
> Thx.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists