[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZRWGYn4Y+2v/S6Ar@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 06:57:54 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, leit@...a.com,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86/bugs: Add a separate config for each mitigation
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 06:40:18AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/28/23 05:45, Breno Leitao wrote:
> > 1) Create one Kconfig entry per mitigation, so, the user can pick and
> > choose what to enable and disable. (Version 3 of this patch. May need a
> > re-spin due to the new mitigations being added.)
>
> This means, what, roughly 18 today?
>
> #define X86_BUG_CPU_MELTDOWN X86_BUG(14)
> ...
> #define X86_BUG_GDS X86_BUG(30)
>
> Plus two bonus ones:
>
> #define X86_BUG_SRSO X86_BUG(1*32 + 0)
> #define X86_BUG_DIV0 X86_BUG(1*32 + 1)
>
> ... and we've slowed down the rate at which we're adding these, but
> we're still seeing a couple a year.
>
> Perhaps Pawan and the others actually _doing_ the patches for these can
> speak up, but I don't think adding a Kconfig option will be too much
> additional work for each new X86_BUG.
>
> I still think it's highly unlikely that someone will come through and
> pick and choose among a few dozen vulnerabilities.
That is what my experience tells me as well. You either have a insecure
and fast kernel, or a hardened one. In some big companies, you can have
both, and choose which one you want to boot depending on the workload.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists