[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250926161459.gdcdag4gr6imeyfk@desk>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 09:14:59 -0700
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>
Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Tao Zhang <tao1.zhang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/vmscape: Replace IBPB with branch history clear
on exit to userspace
On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 01:39:37PM +0000, Kaplan, David wrote:
> > > > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt
> > > > @@ -8048,9 +8048,11 @@
> > > >
> > > > off - disable the mitigation
> > > > ibpb - use Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier
> > > > - (IBPB) mitigation (default)
> > > > + (IBPB) mitigation
> > > > force - force vulnerability detection even on
> > > > unaffected processors
> > > > + auto - (default) automatically select IBPB
> > > > + or BHB clear mitigation based on CPU
> > >
> > > Many of the other bugs (like srso, l1tf, bhi, etc.) do not have explicit
> > > 'auto' options as 'auto' is implied by the lack of an explicit option.
> > > Is there really value in creating an explicit 'auto' option here?
> >
> > Hmm, so to get the BHB clear mitigation do we advise the users to remove
> > the vmscape= parameter? That feels a bit weird to me. Also, with
> > CONFIG_MITIGATION_VMSCAPE=n a user can get IBPB mitigation with
> > vmscape=ibpb, but there is no way to get the BHB clear mitigation.
> >
>
> Maybe a better solution instead is to add a new option 'vmscape=on'.
>
> If we look at the other most recently added bugs like TSA and ITS,
> neither have an explicit 'auto' cmdline option. But they do have 'on'
> cmdline options.
>
> The difference between 'auto' and 'on' is that 'auto' defers to the
> attack vector controls while 'on' means 'enable this mitigation if the
> CPU is vulnerable' (as opposed to 'force' which will enable it even if
> not vulnerable).
>
> An explicit 'vmscape=on' could give users an option to ensure the
> mitigation is used (regardless of attack vectors) and could choose the
> best mitigation (BHB clear if available, otherwise IBPB).
>
> I'd still advise users to not specify any option here unless they know
> what they're doing. But an 'on' option would arguably be more consistent
> with the other recent bugs and maybe meets the needs you're after?
Sounds good to me. I'll update the patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists