Received: by 2002:ac0:a5b6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m51-v6csp3655841imm; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 07:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKtHVS4DgEOepKHyuvBVIOpm2HhGopDD8A6+v7KKSxBBpR5hKA3/yeVurujzDA3r3kFzTV7 X-Received: by 2002:a65:438a:: with SMTP id m10-v6mr17770415pgp.315.1528121739726; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 07:15:39 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1528121739; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=QyChoVN75IIXkKuoOm/IfadCKNdgIcWLU6GF2BPQ7HuqT7K3hQD7njCe7y8fGgVGo2 JQg5CR1xmZQTDc84WIRGfDwJeqdTH3Nk7TyVF5ATqeCzovcmKPnRJrGN8POgJcJG2DdO ubkvTP0I/lpTpHqkzVS4IjjoLAb5m6G4bTlCcqnwURCogCiFkwRxsbhxVnaAVVSI5Erm 33Qglxj3+qYZNie1TJ/vRthzKHBR2VnOmuoGnaEDqzm/IDjHWwB+8UtHaZ0obIE1Td0b vQhs6wwHCK4FMMEhEZy8m2He2j/br8KGX7KOfyVCZrsWG9iQgIiPfR0X+RG/RsxDyzCF frMA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :organization:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:arc-authentication-results; bh=98cT5tEtNNGtm3636TKduF0XPekzSJZ8VC97X0Bt5YA=; b=DldK30AFdLiHVSpj8IK0ox01zaXmLHEawyOYjXcoH52SNUQlhLcGd0TA8AqXuUyXkd WYnK9u4SkfPdjvyyHbuCKXDh9hdKtAlQM9Z5F36/TwNQkdV5u2pNqJHNz9DQlOkT/NEq OHqnOpLylOSpHbR3dAVjWFoZk78r7zSOHFn6xrZjqwv32BqTf64EVrPZ/ZKHm1FLUCNV FlzUj4FmO2Egq/a7LPkoSiQboiY8SLTBYYYjnYfNKqcqI/KsIeP+0zt1nX3ww/Wd8IR1 vUn2+1RPlvxsorybWl8lNgFVQRbcVIuLYSe3gGoxx3SAI9OxQm5WI584eyZGpMN8yPlt TSVg== 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 t184-v6si45345682pfb.98.2018.06.04.07.15.24; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 07:15:39 -0700 (PDT) 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 S1753912AbeFDONM (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:13:12 -0400 Received: from www.llwyncelyn.cymru ([82.70.14.225]:56628 "EHLO fuzix.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753557AbeFDONK (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jun 2018 10:13:10 -0400 Received: from alans-desktop (82-70-14-226.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.70.14.226]) by fuzix.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w54ECqKS023252; Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:12:52 +0100 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 15:12:51 +0100 From: Alan Cox To: Andreas Hartmann Cc: Peter Zijlstra , LKML Subject: Re: Spectre mitigation doesn't seem to work at all?! Message-ID: <20180604151251.1fb34793@alans-desktop> In-Reply-To: References: <141672d1-8dcb-9a84-7f8f-60c7a2c58b07@01019freenet.de> <20180604081502.GE12258@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Organization: Intel Corporation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > A malicious program most probably won't care about that. Therefore, my > next question is: which memory regions can be exploited by a malicious > program? The complete physical memory or only the memory provided to the > malicious program? Should be the latter if this approach should have any > impact. Spectre is not about memory regions. It's about speculative execution leaving measurable footprints. What footprints you leave depend upon what code you are executing. Thus the question becomes 'what can the target access'. In order to attack something you need both a way to influence the code concerned and a way to measure it. In addition it needs to have some secret you want. In practice that usually means something on the same system with its own memory space/privilege level. The usual cases then are user<->kernel and managed application<->runtime. Thus it's very different to meltdown style attacks. If you are actually worried about this you should probably also read up on more general cache prime/probe attacks and cache profiling (things like the ARMageddon paper are worth reading - and while it was done on ARM much of it is generic to most modern processors), as well as timing attacks. Alan