MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180104044424.GC21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180103223827.39601-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <151502463248.33513.5960736946233335087.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CA+55aFzSYExr33w849=3o+2XGr9pUKpFucc5p-kKbEy20VVLPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180104010754.22ca6a74@alans-desktop> <alpine.LRH.2.00.1801040221070.27010@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
 <CAPcyv4ic=X3nMz7deg9NMyvj994+SM9XYoP0u7WvgKaAFSGAYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFx7eJqRA8EWwSCrC+Lr1ZjUvRXSuhrxo+af_Dx3YWKbOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1515035438.20588.4.camel@intel.com> <20180104044424.GC21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 21:44:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gKQD68dCCD-Nz78ZQ9ttung5yMzG3f+JRmGUxuKhK4Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and nospec_barrier
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "alan@linux.intel.com" <alan@linux.intel.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "jikos@kernel.org" <jikos@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 03:10:51AM +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/fdtable.h b/include/linux/fdtable.h
>> index 1c65817673db..dbc12007da51 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/fdtable.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/fdtable.h
>> @@ -82,8 +82,10 @@ static inline struct file *__fcheck_files(struct files_struct *files, unsigned i
>>  {
>>       struct fdtable *fdt = rcu_dereference_raw(files->fdt);
>>
>> -     if (fd < fdt->max_fds)
>> +     if (fd < fdt->max_fds) {
>> +             osb();
>>               return rcu_dereference_raw(fdt->fd[fd]);
>> +     }
>>       return NULL;
>>  }
>
> ... and the point of that would be?  Possibly revealing the value of files->fdt?
> Why would that be a threat, assuming you manage to extract the information in
> question in the first place?

No, the concern is that an fd value >= fdt->max_fds may cause the cpu
to read arbitrary memory addresses relative to files->fdt and
userspace can observe that it got loaded. With the barrier the
speculation stops and never allows that speculative read to issue.
With the change, the cpu only issues a read for fdt->fd[fd] when fd is
valid.