Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:27:28 +0000
From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/enter: Use IBRS on syscall and interrupts
Message-ID: <20180105122727.GD2491@work-vm>
Reply-To: 84a6f2f2-d5fe-6b42-0590-33723c1b4960@intel.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

> Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2018 08:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > Do we need an arch_prctl() to enable IBRS for user mode?
>> 
>> Eventually, once the dust settles.  I think there's a spectrum of
>> paranoia here, that is roughly (with increasing paranoia):
>> 
>> 1. do nothing
>> 2. do retpoline
>> 3. do IBRS in kernel
>> 4. do IBRS always
>> 
>> I think you're asking for ~3.5.
>> 
>> Patches for 1-3 are out there and 4 is pretty straightforward.  Doing a
>> arch_prctl() is still straightforward, but will be a much more niche
>> thing than any of the other choices.  Plus, with a user interface, we
>> have to argue over the ABI for at least a month or two. ;)

I was chatting to Andrea about this, and we came to the conclusion one
use might be for qemu;  I was worried about (theoretically) whether
userspace in a guest could read privileged data from the guest kernel by
attacking the qemu process rather than by attacking the kernels.

Dave

--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK