Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC 09/10] x86/enter: Create macros to restrict/unrestrict
 Indirect Branch Speculation
To:     "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>
References: <1516476182-5153-1-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
 <1516476182-5153-10-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
 <243BE571-AF73-44B3-8D17-193F9E07686A@amacapital.net>
 <4e01a7a9-29e4-adcc-3f53-550fb7f3d370@amd.com>
 <1516724457.9521.156.camel@amazon.co.uk>
 <fb2b5589-e14c-470e-2de0-d9da1667bace@amd.com>
 <20180123224956.GQ7844@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <1516749276.13558.25.camel@amazon.co.uk>
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <cac69284-e76f-6081-62db-adb4dc123045@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:47:36 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1516749276.13558.25.camel@amazon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/23/2018 03:14 PM, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 14:49 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> Not sure.  Maybe to start, the answer might be to allow it to be set for
>>> the ultra-paranoid, but in general don't enable it by default.  Having it
>>> enabled would be an alternative to someone deciding to disable SMT, since
>>> that would have even more of a performance impact.
>>
>> I agree. A reasonable strategy would be to only enable it for
>> processes that have dumpable disabled. This should be already set for
>> high value processes like GPG, and allows others to opt-in if
>> they need to.
> 
> That seems to make sense, and I think was the solution we were
> approaching for IBPB on context switch too, right?
> 
> Are we generally agreed on dumpable as the criterion for both of those?
> 

It is a reasonable approach.  Let a process who needs max security
opt in with disabled dumpable. It can have a flush with IBPB clear before
starting to run, and have STIBP set while running.

Tim