linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86/fineibt: Add FineIBT+BHI mitigation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250215104035.GA13198@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:40:35 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alyssa.milburn@...el.com,
	scott.d.constable@...el.com, joao@...rdrivepizza.com,
	andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
	jose.marchesi@...cle.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
	ndesaulniers@...gle.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com, nathan@...nel.org,
	ojeda@...nel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, mhiramat@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] x86/fineibt: Add FineIBT+BHI mitigation

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:02:12AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:15:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Due to FineIBT weakness, add an additional mitigation for BHI.
> > [...]
> > @@ -1020,6 +1036,8 @@ static __init int cfi_parse_cmdline(char
> >  			cfi_mode = CFI_KCFI;
> >  		} else if (!strcmp(str, "fineibt")) {
> >  			cfi_mode = CFI_FINEIBT;
> > +		} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FINEIBT_BHI) && !strcmp(str, "fineibt+bhi")) {
> > +			cfi_mode = CFI_FINEIBT_BHI;
> >  		} else if (!strcmp(str, "norand")) {
> >  			cfi_rand = false;
> >  		} else {
> 
> While looking at FineIBT vs entry, I noticed that FineIBT+BHI must be
> explicitly selected at boot. Did you want it to be enabled automatically
> when the compiler supports it and FineIBT is enabled? Does there need to
> be a check for BHI added?

Yes, it needs to be tied in with the whole speculation mitigation crap.
Didn't want to bother with all that just yet though.