Messages in this thread | | | From | Jian Cai <> | Date | Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:50:06 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: Implement SLS mitigation |
| |
Please see my comments inlined below.
Thanks, Jian
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 3:58 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 03:08:13PM -0800, Jian Cai wrote: > > This patch adds CONFIG_HARDEN_SLS_ALL that can be used to turn on > > -mharden-sls=all, which mitigates the straight-line speculation > > vulnerability, speculative execution of the instruction following some > > unconditional jumps. Notice -mharden-sls= has other options as below, > > and this config turns on the strongest option. > > > > all: enable all mitigations against Straight Line Speculation that are implemented. > > none: disable all mitigations against Straight Line Speculation. > > retbr: enable the mitigation against Straight Line Speculation for RET and BR instructions. > > blr: enable the mitigation against Straight Line Speculation for BLR instructions. > > > > Links: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D93221 > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D81404 > > https://developer.arm.com/support/arm-security-updates/speculative-processor-vulnerability/downloads/straight-line-speculation > > https://developer.arm.com/support/arm-security-updates/speculative-processor-vulnerability/frequently-asked-questions#SLS2 > > > > Suggested-by: Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@google.com> > > Suggested-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com> > > Suggested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > > Suggested-by: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> > > Suggested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > > Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> > > Signed-off-by: Jian Cai <jiancai@google.com> > > --- > > Please can you reply to my previous questions? > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210217094859.GA3706@willie-the-truck/ > > (apologies if you did, but I don't see them in the archive or my inbox)
I should have clarified the suggested-by tag was in regard to the Kconfig text change. Regarding your earlier questions, please see my comments below.
> So I think that either we enable this unconditionally, or we don't enable it > at all (and people can hack their CFLAGS themselves if they want to).
Not sure if this answers your question but this config should provide a way for people to turn on the mitigation at their own risk.
> It would be helpful for one of the Arm folks to chime in, as I'm yet to see any > evidence that this is actually exploitable. Is it any worse that Spectre-v1, > where we _don't_ have a compiler mitigation?
> Finally, do we have to worry about our assembly code?
I am not sure if there are any plans to protect assembly code and I will leave it to the Arm folks since they know a whole lot better. But even without that part, we should still have better protection, especially when overhead does not look too bad: I did some preliminary experiments on ChromeOS, code size of vmlinux increased 3%, and there were no noticeable changes to run-time performance of the benchmarks I used.
| |