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>
Cc:     David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>, 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>
 <d4d8111b-5758-7541-cc30-b11d6b4d6bec@linux.intel.com>
 <20180131035907.sye4x7f3e77wnroh@treble>
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <2f5614a5-b7c4-52cf-a66f-6f62c2602bee@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:25:44 -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: <20180131035907.sye4x7f3e77wnroh@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 07:59 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 01:23:17PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>> 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.  
> 
> I don't want other users reading my applications' memory.
> 
> I don't want other containers reading my containers' memory.
> 
> I don't want *any* user tasks reading root daemons' memory.
> 
> Those are not unreasonable expectations.
> 
> So now I have to go and modify all my containers and applications to set
> PR_SET_DUMPABLE?  That seems highly impractical and unlikely.
> 
> Plus, I happen to *like* core dumps.
> 
> The other option is to rebuild the entire userland with retpolines, but
> again, that would make this patch completely pointless.
> 
>>> [ 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.
> 
> Is that why the ptrace approach was abandoned?  Surely that's a solvable
> problem?  We have some smart people on lkml.  And anyway I didn't see it
> discussed anywhere.  In the worst case we could just always do IBPB when
> switching between kernel and user tasks.
> 

I think dumpable is not the end all policy.  It is a reasonable starting point
to provide us a means to secure the most sensitive processes without
IBPBing the world.  It is on the performance end of the security/performance trade off.

For people who opt for more security, it is reasonable to consider
alternate policies to distinguish friend and foe so we know if we are coming
from a potentially hostile environment.  Ptrace is one means to do so, and probably
there are other ways depending on usages.  I hope we can have a discussion on what we should
use to determine if two processes are friend or foe.  Say do all the processes
from the same containers are considered friends with each other?
I think once we have this decided, actually putting in IBPB will simple.

Tim