MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1801092017330.27010@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
References: <151520099201.32271.4677179499894422956.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.00.1801092017330.27010@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 11:44:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gccDQYx9urpagnBo-TqNLoQ00gEoE7kp+JXNKsmFxcHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan.cox@intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Solomon Peachy <pizza@shaftnet.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        "Linux-media@vger.kernel.org" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, qla2xxx-upstream@qlogic.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> [ ... snip ... ]
>> Andi Kleen (1):
>>       x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access_ok
>>
>> Dan Williams (13):
>>       x86: implement nospec_barrier()
>>       [media] uvcvideo: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       carl9170: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       p54: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       qla2xxx: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       cw1200: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       Thermal/int340x: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       ipv6: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       ipv4: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       vfs, fdtable: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       net: mpls: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       udf: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>       userns: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution
>>
>> Mark Rutland (4):
>>       asm-generic/barrier: add generic nospec helpers
>>       Documentation: document nospec helpers
>>       arm64: implement nospec_ptr()
>>       arm: implement nospec_ptr()
>
> So considering the recent publication of [1], how come we all of a sudden
> don't need the barriers in ___bpf_prog_run(), namely for LD_IMM_DW and
> LDX_MEM_##SIZEOP, and something comparable for eBPF JIT?
>
> Is this going to be handled in eBPF in some other way?
>
> Without that in place, and considering Jann Horn's paper, it would seem
> like PTI doesn't really lock it down fully, right?

Here is the latest (v3) bpf fix:

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/856645/

I currently have v2 on my 'nospec' branch and will move that to v3 for
the next update, unless it goes upstream before then.