Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/retpoline: Fill return stack buffer on vmexit
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/retpoline: Fill return stack buffer on vmexit
- From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:41:03 +0100 (CET)
- Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Turner <pjt@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <CALCETrWHJZXqDC-PUStHAJrNVMO_QEC0PG0PKAEHD+8TB-eqqQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <1515755487-8524-1-git-send-email-dwmw@amazon.co.uk> <tip-117cc7a908c83697b0b737d15ae1eb5943afe35b@git.kernel.org> <20180125120743.ey32gvl5mjam4r2s@pd.tnic> <1516882849.30244.94.camel@infradead.org> <20180125124554.vdx7rrnfrxrzl2ng@pd.tnic> <20180125151024.bidjr26r667vs7h5@treble> <20180125155110.mw655b7fwgm7qqc7@pd.tnic> <1516896198.30244.133.camel@infradead.org> <20180125165646.ytc4upthpaqtwi45@treble> <1516899639.30244.145.camel@infradead.org> <CALCETrWHJZXqDC-PUStHAJrNVMO_QEC0PG0PKAEHD+8TB-eqqQ@mail.gmail.com>
- User-agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Distros that use retpolines need their driver vendors to recompile no
> matter what.
Absolutely. Tainting a kernel, issuing a warning, or even voluntarily
deciding to not load modules loaded without retpolines, that all sounds
like reasonable aproaches.
Artificially introducing kernel ABI breakage which is not there (as
retpolines are fully compatible when it comes to ABI between modules and
kernel ... the fact that it potentially brings non-retpolined indirect
jump into the kernel is a security concent, but not ABI issue) sounds like
a bad idea.
Those two things (ABI and security concerns) are independent.
> Distros that use IBRS and refuse to use retpolines should get put on a
> list of "didn't actually adequately mitigate spectre".
Oh absolutely, especially on archs where there is no IBRS. But how is this
relevant to ABI?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]