mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: David Kaplan <david.kaplan@amd.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/bugs: Remove 'force' options for retbleed/ITS
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 16:40:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250626144047.GN1613200@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250626142703.716997-1-david.kaplan@amd.com>

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 09:27:03AM -0500, David Kaplan wrote:
> Command line options which force-enable a mitigation on an unaffected
> processor provide arguably no security value but do create the potential
> for problems due to the increased set of mitigation interactions.
> 
> For example, setting "indirect_target_selection=force" on an AMD
> Retbleed-affected CPU (e.g., Zen2) results in a configuration where the
> kernel reports that both ITS and Retbleed are mitigated, but Retbleed is
> not in fact mitigated.  In this configuration, untraining of the retbleed
> return thunk is enabled but the its_return_thunk is active, rendering the
> untraining ineffective.
> 
> It is wrong for the kernel to report that a bug is mitigated when it is
> not.  While this specific interaction could be directly fixed, the ability
> to force-enable these bugs creates unneeded complexity, so remove it.
> 
> If removing these options entirely is unacceptable, perhaps for
> compatibility reasons, another option could be to only allow forcing on the
> affected vendor (i.e., only allow forcing ITS on Intel CPUs), which would
> at least limit the potential interactions that need to be analyzed.
> Tagging as RFC to prompt discussion on this point.

Testing; I use these things for testing. Makes I don't have to run on
affected hardware, I can just force the feature on and inspect the code
and ensures it runs.

If you use force, you get to keep all pieces -- no warranties.

  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-26 14:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-26 14:27 David Kaplan
2025-06-26 14:40 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2025-06-26 14:55   ` Borislav Petkov
2025-06-26 15:13   ` Nikolay Borisov
2025-06-27  7:56     ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20250626144047.GN1613200@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=david.kaplan@amd.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®