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: [PATCH] x86/speculation: Use Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier
 in context switch
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Cc:     arjan@linux.intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, karahmed@amazon.de,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
        peterz@infradead.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linux-foundation.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, linux@dominikbrodowski.net
References: <1517263487-3708-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
 <20180130174850.bwypk4r5yn2344jb@treble>
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <d4d8111b-5758-7541-cc30-b11d6b4d6bec@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:23:17 -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: <20180130174850.bwypk4r5yn2344jb@treble>
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 01/30/2018 09:48 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:04:47PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Flush indirect branches when switching into a process that marked itself
>> non dumpable. This protects high value processes like gpg better,
>> without having too high performance overhead.
> 
> I wonder what the point of this patch is.  An audit of my laptop shows
> only a single user of PR_SET_DUMPABLE: systemd-coredump.

This is an opt in approach.  For processes who need extra
security, it set itself as non-dumpable.  Then it can
ensure that it doesn't see any poisoned BTB.  

> 
> [ And yes, I have gpg-agent running.  Also, a grep of the gnupg source
> doesn't show any evidence of it being used there.  So the gpg thing
> seems to be a myth. ]

I'm less familiar with gpg-agent.  Dave was the one who
put in comments about gpg-agent in this patch so perhaps
he can comment.

> 
> But also, I much preferred the original version of the patch which only
> skipped IBPB when 'prev' could ptrace 'next'.

For the A->kernel thread->B scenario, you will need context of A
to decide if you need IBPB when switching to B.  You need to
worry about whether the context of A has been released ... etc if
you want to use ptrace.

> 
> If performance is a concern, let's look at that in more detail.  But I
> don't see how the solution to a performance issue could possibly be
> "leave (almost) all tasks vulnerable by default."
> 

Thanks.

Tim