[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251009053336.ghcmhgsprtkgydas@desk>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 22:33:36 -0700
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>,
Klaus Kusche <klaus.kusche@...puterix.info>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bugs: Qualify RETBLEED_INTEL_MSG
On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 05:14:29PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 04:08:21PM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 12:12:29AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 11:22:57AM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > > > IMO, rather than targeting the mitigation enabling code it might make more
> > > > sense to compile out the actual mitigations scattered accross the kernel.
> > > > This may also improve performance by reducing the code footprint, and can
> > > > also help getting a cleaner disassembly.
>
> Isn't that what CONFIG_CPU_MITIGATIONS=n already does today?
Not entirely, looking at entry_64.o for example, I see 243 NOPs with
CONFIG_CPU_MITIGATIONS=n. I suspect a lot of them are due to ALTERNATIVEs
for mitigations. In the same file, clear_bhb_loop() is not compliled out
and adds ~160 bytes.
Another example is process.c which still contains below functions:
0000000000000000 <speculation_ctrl_update_tif>:
00000000000008b0 <speculative_store_bypass_ht_init>:
0000000000000980 <speculation_ctrl_update>:
0000000000000c30 <speculation_ctrl_update_current>:
> > > Probably... however, it needs to be done smartly because sprinkling ifdeffery
> > > and turning what is an already unreadable mess into a bigger abomination,
> > > won't fly. Perhaps split out the mitigations glue into separate compilation
> > > units and build-disable them... we'll see.
> >
> > Ya, that would be better.
>
> On a sort of related note, it's confusing that there are two completely
> different classes of MITIGATION options which get conflated:
>
> 1) compile the kernel with support for certain mitigations:
>
> MITIGATION_RETPOLINE
> MITIGATION_RETHUNK
> MITIGATION_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION
> MITIGATION_UNRET_ENTRY
> MITIGATION_CALL_DEPTH_TRACKING
> MITIGATION_IBPB_ENTRY
> MITIGATION_IBRS_ENTRY
> MITIGATION_SRSO
> MITIGATION_SLS
>
> 2) enable bug-specific runtime defaults:
>
> MITIGATION_GDS
> MITIGATION_RFDS
> MITIGATION_SPECTRE_BHI
> MITIGATION_MDS
> MITIGATION_TAA
> MITIGATION_MMIO_STALE_DATA
> MITIGATION_L1TF
> MITIGATION_RETBLEED
> MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V1
> MITIGATION_SPECTRE_V2
> MITIGATION_SRBDS
> MITIGATION_SSB
> MITIGATION_ITS
> MITIGATION_TSA
> MITIGATION_VMSCAPE
>
> In general, #1 uglify the kernel. And some #2 depend on #1.
>
> IMO, we should rename the #1 options. For example:
>
> MITIGATION_RETPOLINE -> X86_UGLY_INDIRECT_THUNKS
> MITIGATION_RETHUNK -> X86_UGLY_RETURN_THUNKS
>
> etc...
>
> Then one only needs to grep their .config file for UGLY to understand
> why their disassembly is so inscrutable ;-)
:-) Agree, this is ugly. One way to handle this could be two levels of
Kconfig options like below:
* CONFIG_MITIGATION_FOO - Compiles out the mitigation
* CONFIG_MITIGATION_FOO_DEFAULT - Sets the bootup default
select X86_UGLY_INDIRECT_THUNKS
Then supporting mitigation like INDIRECT_THUNKS would only be enabled if
there is a dependent mitigation enabled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists