Received: by 2002:ac0:a582:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m2-v6csp1531983imm; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:39:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60Rmr6pN/EhO2nLLz7toQxn7LcNOPxFg9NJjpZWM7Oqlj53APU2GqjwnZ+uYFAry0puxCob X-Received: by 2002:a63:69c3:: with SMTP id e186-v6mr14916068pgc.431.1538498358439; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:39:18 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1538498358; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=KB5unkuWx3/bY8+D0V7oK/K7Ypl+lVZJh6IAYH9TjSimSB2pnPHdnZlx0IppE4Zdri bzANTiZiv0lxR+SEbkgJ9plFNNGgh4G0kC6V5wz9DTF1+bu1pVTjTOz7cqMW1YaFu5nX pFv3zpZTe0A/I3Q4I7rgM/Z+GwoLdJfblqJccnPfBqztPKw9B+TUmaHRxbWDcVDiD4Y3 3lqPvWovyw6z1LQuXKs8DZGjgzXCeY3W5GzWzyBtMb/ziVyeh3vZg9915AN/1mcxPmYL q9zjqo/0xqw1KfzAs5BTZ6729gJYrhgGIMu+VNM7nZ+VDKBRkK9dLGHGgWmeeRMKoB8D VL2w== 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 :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=bV9Z1ESo2wcgpcuf0P+jyTOoa+KD4dNvbl6sNySPQuk=; b=Lkrgr5caCZxyyQ973PZtmJ4Kv3RN40vMjt6Lq70rwAhWCH9PlNUMOdZIL5DuF4odZd 5ajmyLiTxm1ULCF+V7YwzDpQcOUVRloBZ5kXyP4lR/tsTyfLgKU2U/c78KiDTUaYSb8w D5QG9w5OS/JYQrHZLoNCZIpX90wwhxKPfA9nmcIWU9FQCpDw1equUJtlfKcK47e1+nII O314TYsuS4qgkY2TgWmZJs9bi2DLdpxOIGa3FLHewVu6Xu2rXJ/aadEE7FqBh8BzoQec Is+/0V1buppt5j+MjI57ncKVuv7CmesJB9i/6KMuBC4g1OdbDyP4Qr1hd6TIHtBJCMBA l1Fw== 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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h125-v6si16622393pfg.138.2018.10.02.09.39.03; Tue, 02 Oct 2018 09:39:18 -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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727631AbeJBW1S (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 18:27:18 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42790 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726184AbeJBW1S (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2018 18:27:18 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC086AE85; Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 17:43:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Jon Masters cc: Tim Chen , Thomas Gleixner , Tom Lendacky , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Josh Poimboeuf , Andrea Arcangeli , David Woodhouse , Andi Kleen , Dave Hansen , Casey Schaufler , Asit Mallick , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/speculation: Provide application property based STIBP protection In-Reply-To: <1a501628-a232-a126-166e-814c26243f2d@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <0c55c162a077aadbfd57878e2694e35292c1a29c.1537392876.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> <1a501628-a232-a126-166e-814c26243f2d@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Jon Masters wrote: > > This patch provides an application property based spectre_v2 > > protection with STIBP against attack from another app from > > a sibling hyper-thread. For security sensitive non-dumpable > > app, STIBP will be turned on before switching to it for Intel > > processors vulnerable to spectre_v2. > > A general comment. I think in practice this will be similar to the > speculative store buffer bypass (aka "variant 4") issue in terms of > opt-in mitigation. Many users won't want to take the performance hit of > having STIBP by default for peer threads. We should make sure that we > don't force users into a mitigation but retain an option. Whether it's > default-on or not can be debated, though I think the vendors lean toward > having default-off with an opt-in, and customers will probably agree. So > anyway, I encourage a pragmatic approach similar to that for SSBD. Which is what Tim's patchset is implementing on top. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs