Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 19:33:37 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan.cox@intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Solomon Peachy <pizza@shaftnet.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        "Linux-media@vger.kernel.org" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, qla2xxx-upstream@qlogic.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative
 execution
Message-ID: <20180108183337.iq7xjxf2dkbkzig6@gmail.com> (sfid-20180108_193636_106382_E720B406)
References: <151520099201.32271.4677179499894422956.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <87y3lbpvzp.fsf@xmission.com>
 <CAPcyv4hVisGeXbTH985Hb6dkYKA9Sr8wwZHudNF-CtH0=ADFug@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180108100836.GF3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180108114342.3b2d99fb@alans-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20180108114342.3b2d99fb@alans-desktop>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org


* Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:08:36 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 10:30:16PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:  
> > > > In at least one place (mpls) you are patching a fast path.  Compile out
> > > > or don't load mpls by all means.  But it is not acceptable to change the
> > > > fast path without even considering performance.  
> > > 
> > > Performance matters greatly, but I need help to identify a workload
> > > that is representative for this fast path to see what, if any, impact
> > > is incurred. Even better is a review that says "nope, 'index' is not
> > > subject to arbitrary userspace control at this point, drop the patch."  
> > 
> > I think we're focussing a little too much on pure userspace. That is, we
> > should be saying under the attackers control. Inbound network packets
> > could equally be under the attackers control.
> 
> Inbound network packets don't come with a facility to read back and do
> cache timimg. [...]

But the reply packets can be measured on the sending side, and the total delay 
timing would thus carry the timing information.

Yes, a lot of noise gets added that way if we think 'packet goes through the 
Internet' - but with gigabit local network access or even through localhost
access a lot of noise can be removed as well.

It's not as dangerous as a near instantaneous local attack, but 'needs a day of 
runtime to brute-force through localhost or 10GigE' is still worrying in many 
real-world security contexts.

So I concur with Peter that we should generally consider making all of our 
responses to external data (maybe with the exception of pigeon post messages) 
Spectre-safe.

Thanks,

	Ingo