linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb

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: <20251124193126.sdmrhk6dw4jgf5ql@desk>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:31:26 -0800
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To: david laight <david.laight@...box.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
	Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	David Kaplan <david.kaplan@....com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
	Tao Zhang <tao1.zhang@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] x86/bhi: Make clear_bhb_loop() effective on
 newer CPUs

On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 11:05:58AM +0000, david laight wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 13:26:27 -0800
> Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 10:42:24AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 11/21/25 10:16, Pawan Gupta wrote:  
> > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 08:50:17AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:  
> > > >> On 11/21/25 08:45, Nikolay Borisov wrote:  
> > > >>> OTOH: the global variable approach seems saner as in the macro you'd
> > > >>> have direct reference to them and so it will be more obvious how things
> > > >>> are setup.  
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh, yeah, duh. You don't need to pass the variables in registers. They
> > > >> could just be read directly.  
> > > > 
> > > > IIUC, global variables would introduce extra memory loads that may slow
> > > > things down. I will try to measure their impact. I think those global
> > > > variables should be in the .entry.text section to play well with PTI.  
> > > 
> > > Really? I didn't look exhaustively, but CLEAR_BRANCH_HISTORY seems to
> > > get called pretty close to where the assembly jumps into C. Long after
> > > we're running on the kernel CR3.  
> > 
> > You are right. PTI is not a concern here.
> > 
> > > > Also I was preferring constants because load values from global variables
> > > > may also be subject to speculation. Although any speculation should be
> > > > corrected before an indirect branch is executed because of the LFENCE after
> > > > the sequence.  
> > > 
> > > I guess that's a theoretical problem, but it's not a practical one.  
> > 
> > Probably yes. But, load from memory would certainly be slower compared to
> > immediates.
> > 
> > > So I think we have 4-ish options at this point:
> > > 
> > > 1. Generate the long and short sequences independently and in their
> > >    entirety and ALTERNATIVE between them (the original patch)
> > > 2. Store the inner/outer loop counts in registers and:
> > >   2a. Load those registers from variables
> > >   2b. Load them from ALTERNATIVES  
> > 
> > Both of these look to be good options to me.
> > 
> > 2b. would be my first preference, because it keeps the loop counts as
> > inline constants. The resulting sequence stays the same as it is today.
> > 
> > > 3. Store the inner/outer loop counts in variables in memory  
> > 
> > I could be wrong, but this will likely have non-zero impact on performance.
> > I am afraid to cause any regressions in BHI mitigation. That is why I
> > preferred the least invasive approach in my previous attempts.
> 
> Surely it won't be significant compared to the cost of the loop itself.
> That is the bit that really kills performance.

Correct, recent data suggests the same.

> For subtle reasons one of the mitigations that slows kernel entry caused
> a doubling of the execution time of a largely single-threaded task that
> spends almost all its time in userspace!
> (I thought I'd disabled it at compile time - but the config option
> changed underneath me...)

That is surprising. If its okay, could you please share more details about
this application? Or any other way I can reproduce this?