linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/speculation: Fix user-mode spectre-v2 protection with KERNEL

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: <CACYkzJ6NaU29uULf9q+DjrgCfQsUH0bAFjBZbkUBRmPR_Ep_3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 10:52:08 -0800
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] x86/speculation: Fix user-mode spectre-v2
 protection with KERNEL_IBRS

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:45 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 3:31 PM Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 20/02/2023 9:10 pm, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 07:57:25PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > >> I think we're discussing the legacy IBRS case here.  i.e. what was
> > >> retrofitted in microcode for existing parts?
> > > Any IBRS actually. The one which is *not* the automatic, fire'n'forget
> > > thing.
> >
> > /sigh so we're still talking about 3 different things then.
> >
> > 1) Intel's legacy IBRS
> > 2) AMD's regular IBRS
> > 3) AMD's AutoIBRS
> >
> > which all have different relevant behaviours for userspace.  Just so
> > it's written out coherently in at least one place...
> >
> > When SEV-SNP is enabled in firmware, whether or not it's being used by
> > software, AutoIBRS keeps indirect predictions inhibited in all of
> > ASID0.  That's all host userspace to the non-hypervisor devs reading
> > this thread.
> >
> > For any AMD configuration setting STIBP, there must be an IBPB after
> > having set STIBP.   Setting STIBP alone does not evict previously
> > created shared predictions.  This one can go subtly wrong for anyone who
> > assumes that Intel STIBP and AMD STIBP have the same behaviour.
>
> This is very useful, but I think this is also why the STIBP and IBPB's
> conditionals seemed to be tangled together. The prctl / seccomp code
> should set STIBP and trigger an IBPB.
>
> I took a stab at the documentation piece, Andrew and others could you
> help me with a review and suggestions?
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst
> b/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst
> index c4dcdb3d0d45..d7003bbc82f6 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/hw-vuln/spectre.rst
> @@ -479,8 +479,17 @@ Spectre variant 2
>     On Intel Skylake-era systems the mitigation covers most, but not all,
>     cases. See :ref:`[3] <spec_ref3>` for more details.
>
> -   On CPUs with hardware mitigation for Spectre variant 2 (e.g. Enhanced
> -   IBRS on x86), retpoline is automatically disabled at run time.
> +   On CPUs with hardware mitigation for Spectre variant 2 (e.g. IBRS
> +   or enhanced IBRS on x86), retpoline is automatically disabled at run time.
> +
> +   Setting the IBRS bit implicitly enables STIBP which guards against
> +   cross-thread branch target injection on SMT systems. On systems
> with enhanced
> +   IBRS, the kernel sets the bit once, which keeps cross-thread protections
> +   always enabled, obviating the need for an explicit STIBP. On CPUs
> with legacy
> +   IBRS, the kernel clears the IBRS bit on returning to user-space, thus also
> +   disabling the implicit STIBP. Consequently, STIBP needs to be explicitly
> +   enabled to guard against cross-thread attacks in userspace.
> +
>
>     The retpoline mitigation is turned on by default on vulnerable
>     CPUs. It can be forced on or off by the administrator
> @@ -504,9 +513,12 @@ Spectre variant 2
>     For Spectre variant 2 mitigation, individual user programs
>     can be compiled with return trampolines for indirect branches.
>     This protects them from consuming poisoned entries in the branch
> -   target buffer left by malicious software.  Alternatively, the
> -   programs can disable their indirect branch speculation via prctl()
> -   (See :ref:`Documentation/userspace-api/spec_ctrl.rst <set_spec_ctrl>`).
> +   target buffer left by malicious software.
> +
> +   On legacy IBRS systems where the IBRS bit is cleared and thus disabling the
> +   implicit STIBP on returning to userspace, the programs can disable their
> +   indirect branch speculation via prctl() (See
> +   :ref:`Documentation/userspace-api/spec_ctrl.rst <set_spec_ctrl>`).
>     On x86, this will turn on STIBP to guard against attacks from the
>     sibling thread when the user program is running, and use IBPB to
>     flush the branch target buffer when switching to/from the program.
>

I sent a new revision in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230221184908.2349578-1-kpsingh@kernel.org/T/#t
(I forgot to Cc Andrew, I would appreciate if you can have a look) and
I should not have added stable yet (mentioning it before it gets
called out)