linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/11] bpf, arm64, powerpc: Change nospec to include v1 barrier

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6dde4d2e-b249-4fb8-a8f6-359cb7c8b0fe@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 12:29:41 +0530
From: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Luis Gerhorst <luis.gerhorst@....de>, Alexei Starovoitov
 <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau
 <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>,
        Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...weicloud.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>,
        Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Henriette Herzog <henriette.herzog@....de>,
        Saket Kumar Bhaskar <skb99@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Cupertino Miranda <cupertino.miranda@...cle.com>,
        Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@....com>, Matan Shachnai <m.shachnai@...il.com>,
        Dimitar Kanaliev <dimitar.kanaliev@...eground.com>,
        Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Maximilian Ott <ott@...fau.de>, Milan Stephan <milan.stephan@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 06/11] bpf, arm64, powerpc: Change nospec to
 include v1 barrier



On 18/05/25 4:11 pm, Hari Bathini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21/04/25 2:47 pm, Luis Gerhorst wrote:
>> This changes the semantics of BPF_NOSPEC (previously a v4-only barrier)
>> to always emit a speculation barrier that works against both Spectre v1
>> AND v4. If mitigation is not needed on an architecture, the backend
>> should set bpf_jit_bypass_spec_v4/v1().
>>
>> As of now, this commit only has the user-visible implication that unpriv
>> BPF's performance on PowerPC is reduced. This is the case because we
>> have to emit additional v1 barrier instructions for BPF_NOSPEC now.
>>
>> This commit is required for a future commit to allow us to rely on
>> BPF_NOSPEC for Spectre v1 mitigation. As of this commit, the feature
>> that nospec acts as a v1 barrier is unused.
>>
>> Commit f5e81d111750 ("bpf: Introduce BPF nospec instruction for
>> mitigating Spectre v4") noted that mitigation instructions for v1 and v4
>> might be different on some archs. While this would potentially offer
>> improved performance on PowerPC, it was dismissed after the following
>> considerations:
>>
>> * Only having one barrier simplifies the verifier and allows us to
>>    easily rely on v4-induced barriers for reducing the complexity of
>>    v1-induced speculative path verification.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>>
>> * For the architectures that implemented BPF_NOSPEC, only PowerPC has
>>    distinct instructions for v1 and v4. Even there, some insns may be
>>    shared between the barriers for v1 and v4 (e.g., 'ori 31,31,0' and
>>    'sync'). If this is still found to impact performance in an
>>    unacceptable way, BPF_NOSPEC can be split into BPF_NOSPEC_V1 and
>>    BPF_NOSPEC_V4 later. As an optimization, we can already skip v1/v4
>>    insns from being emitted for PowerPC with this setup if
>>    bypass_spec_v1/v4 is set.
>>
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Acked-by: Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>

Applies to v3 too :)
Let me send for v3..

- Hari