linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 20/35] x86/bugs: Define attack vectors

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: <20250220220440.ma5yfebhiovkqojt@jpoimboe>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 14:04:40 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 20/35] x86/bugs: Define attack vectors

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:52:03AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:05:01PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > IMO, make them generic from the start, then there's less churn and it's
> > easy to port the other arches.
> > 
> > If we went with putting everything in "mitigations=", making them
> > generic would be the obvious way to go anyway.
> 
> Just to make sure we're all on the same page: we obviously cannot enable
> and test and support a mitigaion on another arch like, say, arm64, or so.
> 
> This needs to come from the respective arch maintainers themselves and they'll
> have to say, yes, pls, enable it and we'll support it. We should not go "oh,
> this would be a good idea to do on all arches" without hearing from them
> first, even if it is a good idea on its face.
> 
> That's why those are x86-only as they should be initially.

I wasn't suggesting that this patch set should *enable* it on all
arches.  Of course that would need to be reviewed by the respective arch
maintainers.

But looking ahead, this *will* be needed for the other arches, for the
same reason we have a generic mitigations=off.  It's a user problem, not
an arch-specific one.  Users need a simple interface that works
everywhere.  That's why I suggested integrating it into "mitigations=".

-- 
Josh