linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] cdrom: Fix spectre-v1 gadget

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, 16 Jun 2023 11:39:57 +0200
From:   Jordy Zomer <jordyzomer@...gle.com>
To:     Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] cdrom: Fix spectre-v1 gadget

Thanks for the explanation Pawan, a little bit off-topic for this patch but
shall I send a patch to add this to the documentation of array_index_nospec()
and fix other calls to that function where the upper bound is not a constant? :)

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 5:15 AM Pawan Gupta
<pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:31:50AM +0100, Phillip Potter wrote:
> > I've now looked at this. It is possible for cdi->capacity to be > 1, as
> > it is set via get_capabilities() -> cdrom_number_of_slots(), if the
> > device is an individual or cartridge changer.
>
> Ohk. Is there an upper limit to cdi->capacity? If not, we are left with
> barrier_nospec().
>
> > Therefore, I think using CDI_MAX_CAPACITY of 1 is not the correct
> > approach. Jordy's V2 patch is fine therefore, but perhaps using
> > array_index_nospec() with cdi->capacity is still better than a
> > do/while loop from a performance perspective, given it would be cached
> > etc. at that point, so possibly quicker. Thoughts? (I'm no expert on
> > spectre-v1 I'll admit).
>
> array_index_nospec() can only clip the arg correctly if the upper bound
> is correct. Problem with array_index_nospec(arg, cdi->capacity) is
> cdi->capacity is not a constant, so it suffers from the same problem as
> arg i.e. cdi->capacity could also be speculated. Although having to
> control 2 loads makes the attack difficult, but does not rules out
> completely.
>
> barrier_nospec() makes the CPU wait for all previous loads to retire
> before executing following instructions speculatively. This causes the
> conditional branch to resolve correctly. I hope this does not fall into
> a hotpath.