lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/1] x86/fred: Fix INT80 emulation for FRED
From
On 4/17/2024 8:07 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 4/17/24 04:02, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>> On 17.04.24 г. 9:30 ч., Xin Li (Intel) wrote:
>>> 4) int80_emulation() does a CLEAR_BRANCH_HISTORY, which is likely
>>> >     overkill for new x86 CPU implementations that support FRED.
>>
>> Well, that's a bit of an overstatement/speculation, because
>> clear_branch_history will only be effective if the machine is
>> susceptible to the given bug and there isn't a better options (i.e
>> using a hardware bit controlling the respective aspect of the CPU).
>>>
>
> It would seem like a huge stretch to expect that a FRED-capable CPU
> would not have such a facility. This is a matter of establishing a
> baseline for FRED-capable hardware.
>
> It would make more sense to me to add it if we turn out to need it; note
> that FRED code is currently only enabled on demand, in order to defend
> against bit rot until we have physical hardware.
>
> Now, if this is still desired, it *probably* belongs better in either
> fred_intx()/fred_other() or asm_fred_entrypoint_user, depending on if
> this ought to be done for all entries from userspace or only system calls.

My bad that I didn't make this a good comment, even neglected that
clear_branch_history is just a nop on machines w/o such security issues.


So how about?

int80_emulation() does a CLEAR_BRANCH_HISTORY, which is IDT-specific.
While FRED will likely take a different approach when it is needed:
it *probably* belongs in either fred_intx()/fred_other() or
asm_fred_entrypoint_user(), depending on if this ought to be done for
all entries from userspace or only system calls.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-04-17 17:56    [W:0.053 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site