linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/bugs: Add attack vector controls for SSB

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:
 <LV3PR12MB9265934929BC29E635C39EDD9438A@LV3PR12MB9265.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:25:26 +0000
From: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf
	<jpoimboe@...nel.org>, 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 v2 4/5] x86/bugs: Add attack vector controls for SSB

[AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 9:22 AM
> To: Kaplan, David <David.Kaplan@....com>
> Cc: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>; Thomas Gleixner
> <tglx@...utronix.de>; Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>; Josh Poimboeuf
> <jpoimboe@...nel.org>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>; Dave Hansen
> <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>; x86@...nel.org; H . Peter Anvin
> <hpa@...or.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/bugs: Add attack vector controls for SSB
>
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 02:05:14PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> > If you really want to not pick up patch #3 yet, then you could move the
> > should_mitigate_vuln() check into the switch statement for
> > SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_CMD_AUTO only.  Or just pick up the clean-up patch
> which
> > also reduces the overall code size.
>
> I need a minimal fix which goes into 6.17 now because we forgot SSB. This
> patch was my attempt at doing something like that.
>
> Cleanups can then go ontop.
>

Ok.  Then I would go with the suggestion in my reply...move the should_mitigate_vuln() logic into the SPEC_STORE_BYPASS_CMD_AUTO branch of the switch.  I think that should work as expected.

Rest of the patch was fine I think.

--David Kaplan