Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp1119551wrg; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:15:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226e6bLvJMdy1UzE8Q2h2KKyDGgUu4XDinXHL/vhzuX3EfjNDiyRkWNyXvMZjDueo+iammzo X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:52cd:: with SMTP id a71-v6mr2743581pli.389.1519416947951; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:15:47 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519416947; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=S6hKX+y6wcuycn0IHqrKD93z73rmvT2BFVS85F530417Viz7VcrcKsh5R2/ctTFmE8 +w1WAaPuYAssd3spOxCeDtSbadlbInn79zUy7H9NL96EsfEMLog+zhmq+JMwwo6/1Rap SFw/erFHwOfOrG5v8p1tpwkhnCUh2MopEWAw4zZoPZdeTCbpqApL+xa6D9rq068EdaH1 L/8YgUuYaKZSm9Uq6Yed9LffvTqhuPeN6OZZ4DltpbtMyaM444nc3dzgl9FWKXlad8sM q+3ph1ZwlMMcRYy/UTiFNim0RqfGC5yOC2eRgBowhODA2kRg3kPsO86ecSLgd5fDr345 Ezog== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from :arc-authentication-results; bh=FbyFLFVtMqH4EXIpOD7ujpnnqAehzxdPOLiAEU/QEAg=; b=p+DTkJ5xP5oJhXX9Na2maMgfhIdOGnw/ClAU2IK4hznkRtXYMB9LWO7tHoi2FMAzwT 6KcPoDMtFFiaZf/UEoEn4EnLoVHn0fD8wPA04oXgk7KYoIZ3lsImDOCCCuXtf9X5GEUq YTEI95VyWr0X8+tTmVucOiDU5mwgbevMZIMdm7ugRFyWz5BCKop3IhR7pC39Fzr39MKP Mqw8P5VoxZ4FDzbFAdQYQs4jOhJLbeAKf+PXIMmap1vhfR6ncNAA10QSKt5ZgmvM3CA9 GOYqYawxgcGka+6tAaPuGw2Bn3WxaI0xxDo81FS9XTz6eloetp8ALoMl4PoZtvhNX52R aPEg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y190si1925684pgd.177.2018.02.23.12.15.33; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:15:47 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932719AbeBWSkz (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:40:55 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:40280 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932672AbeBWSkv (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:40:51 -0500 Received: from localhost (LFbn-1-12258-90.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.92.71.90]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FC2B11F9; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 18:40:50 +0000 (UTC) From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , Will Deacon , Dan Williams , Thomas Gleixner , Kees Cook , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Peter Zijlstra , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, alan@linux.intel.com, David Woodhouse , Jack Wang Subject: [PATCH 4.4 173/193] Documentation: Document array_index_nospec Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 19:26:46 +0100 Message-Id: <20180223170353.126016056@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.2 In-Reply-To: <20180223170325.997716448@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180223170325.997716448@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.65 X-stable: review MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Mark Rutland (cherry picked from commit f84a56f73dddaeac1dba8045b007f742f61cd2da) Document the rationale and usage of the new array_index_nospec() helper. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Dan Williams Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Reviewed-by: Kees Cook Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: alan@linux.intel.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/151727413645.33451.15878817161436755393.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse [jwang: cherry pick to 4.4] Signed-off-by: Jack Wang Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- Documentation/speculation.txt | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/speculation.txt --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/speculation.txt @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +This document explains potential effects of speculation, and how undesirable +effects can be mitigated portably using common APIs. + +=========== +Speculation +=========== + +To improve performance and minimize average latencies, many contemporary CPUs +employ speculative execution techniques such as branch prediction, performing +work which may be discarded at a later stage. + +Typically speculative execution cannot be observed from architectural state, +such as the contents of registers. However, in some cases it is possible to +observe its impact on microarchitectural state, such as the presence or +absence of data in caches. Such state may form side-channels which can be +observed to extract secret information. + +For example, in the presence of branch prediction, it is possible for bounds +checks to be ignored by code which is speculatively executed. Consider the +following code: + + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) + { + if (index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS) + return 0; + else + return array[index]; + } + +Which, on arm64, may be compiled to an assembly sequence such as: + + CMP , #MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS + B.LT less + MOV , #0 + RET + less: + LDR , [, ] + RET + +It is possible that a CPU mis-predicts the conditional branch, and +speculatively loads array[index], even if index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS. This +value will subsequently be discarded, but the speculated load may affect +microarchitectural state which can be subsequently measured. + +More complex sequences involving multiple dependent memory accesses may +result in sensitive information being leaked. Consider the following +code, building on the prior example: + + int load_dependent_arrays(int *arr1, int *arr2, int index) + { + int val1, val2, + + val1 = load_array(arr1, index); + val2 = load_array(arr2, val1); + + return val2; + } + +Under speculation, the first call to load_array() may return the value +of an out-of-bounds address, while the second call will influence +microarchitectural state dependent on this value. This may provide an +arbitrary read primitive. + +==================================== +Mitigating speculation side-channels +==================================== + +The kernel provides a generic API to ensure that bounds checks are +respected even under speculation. Architectures which are affected by +speculation-based side-channels are expected to implement these +primitives. + +The array_index_nospec() helper in can be used to +prevent information from being leaked via side-channels. + +A call to array_index_nospec(index, size) returns a sanitized index +value that is bounded to [0, size) even under cpu speculation +conditions. + +This can be used to protect the earlier load_array() example: + + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) + { + if (index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS) + return 0; + else { + index = array_index_nospec(index, MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS); + return array[index]; + } + }