From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB59BF4FA for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731544654; cv=none; b=kuLDu2IZ8kJpA6B7vZ9pNmInaqK+5bTngCkVF/CJN21MEkI0RFy9JUfQW/iZhMcOx4iWy31fA4c7TPWUwgEs1cf34R+2I9lCko4G+qq727zsRrlSWCF/omUJz9m6hPawGjFKOWZA3BpsVz59RUbRsNWbnZwp4IdJi4Nv0mV/3WQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731544654; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ul/p5tGhzdXXOd8O/DNHNnOAm6m7djyj9W0rJLaMb+8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KYQP6z4LL4vkuo3DT+Hde9VAc05Pb/RRZp18Gy4IFnqhqE9gySmCjkIExGdMYs9LXR+5AbvW00d6oGluXBIJPCHf8JRXmBpWupC7PVyQioKpeaqvb4+x/Sgnk2fa4xQanus11dF2C9lC2wm7lPmqaYJc+Re6vyIzQm70QlyrTcY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=T5RcN9zs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="T5RcN9zs" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1731544653; x=1763080653; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ul/p5tGhzdXXOd8O/DNHNnOAm6m7djyj9W0rJLaMb+8=; b=T5RcN9zsCvIB8MVs9lMvqFu6PQE52kjTQ8CyZcKYBOKBDzupGJuFdXx5 FM4AzXb9uVq0GgZFRfQ+FHxT+eHoY00X14wXVPa3+JY/CzY18bEBfe1aL T4G6c7uZoeWpgryuarT34vMF6jFWLTjWgj/4mMZw7xNRDK585NQKYo6Pu fn6pwx6FOJZG6q+AnMsZPDDcNLaEe2EbwCmh6u8QZrJjMRi1nxWudlENu 8K1XuxKi0YOFi0CsJ/qSVZaWeYXrDJpyO/Oc0GVs7lauooW33g3nxvqn5 kYeS10kUaTqUmmbEYPcdnRyjsKOjKDtTDTBwoHVI7QopxG1gNRbu9xzTm A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: j1PpNbF0QqGW9kgBuFmaEg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: d7kkw154T1mdotpm5R5jHQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11222"; a="42580518" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="42580518" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Nov 2024 16:37:33 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: gx43qFLGTImbVMUWiSmgLw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: KCXu9t2MSjeLW+GrtKVMVw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="92953371" Received: from kkkuntal-desk3 (HELO [10.124.220.196]) ([10.124.220.196]) by ORVIESA003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Nov 2024 16:37:32 -0800 Message-ID: <844f58da-638f-4a91-88e7-f66f7fcefe51@intel.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 16:37:31 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] x86/cpu/bugs: Consider having old Intel microcode to be a vulnerability To: Alex Murray , dave.hansen@linux.intel.com Cc: bp@alien8.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org References: <87v7wtvty0.fsf@canonical.com> <1c1015f8-1a47-4e5b-b088-f83054d2f613@intel.com> <87iksrhkv8.fsf@canonical.com> <7fc07eff-b4a1-4f8d-a9de-dba057d5c9c6@intel.com> <87h68avg81.fsf@canonical.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dave Hansen Autocrypt: addr=dave.hansen@intel.com; keydata= xsFNBE6HMP0BEADIMA3XYkQfF3dwHlj58Yjsc4E5y5G67cfbt8dvaUq2fx1lR0K9h1bOI6fC oAiUXvGAOxPDsB/P6UEOISPpLl5IuYsSwAeZGkdQ5g6m1xq7AlDJQZddhr/1DC/nMVa/2BoY 2UnKuZuSBu7lgOE193+7Uks3416N2hTkyKUSNkduyoZ9F5twiBhxPJwPtn/wnch6n5RsoXsb ygOEDxLEsSk/7eyFycjE+btUtAWZtx+HseyaGfqkZK0Z9bT1lsaHecmB203xShwCPT49Blxz VOab8668QpaEOdLGhtvrVYVK7x4skyT3nGWcgDCl5/Vp3TWA4K+IofwvXzX2ON/Mj7aQwf5W iC+3nWC7q0uxKwwsddJ0Nu+dpA/UORQWa1NiAftEoSpk5+nUUi0WE+5DRm0H+TXKBWMGNCFn c6+EKg5zQaa8KqymHcOrSXNPmzJuXvDQ8uj2J8XuzCZfK4uy1+YdIr0yyEMI7mdh4KX50LO1 pmowEqDh7dLShTOif/7UtQYrzYq9cPnjU2ZW4qd5Qz2joSGTG9eCXLz5PRe5SqHxv6ljk8mb ApNuY7bOXO/A7T2j5RwXIlcmssqIjBcxsRRoIbpCwWWGjkYjzYCjgsNFL6rt4OL11OUF37wL QcTl7fbCGv53KfKPdYD5hcbguLKi/aCccJK18ZwNjFhqr4MliQARAQABzUVEYXZpZCBDaHJp c3RvcGhlciBIYW5zZW4gKEludGVsIFdvcmsgQWRkcmVzcykgPGRhdmUuaGFuc2VuQGludGVs LmNvbT7CwXgEEwECACIFAlQ+9J0CGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEGg1 lTBwyZKwLZUP/0dnbhDc229u2u6WtK1s1cSd9WsflGXGagkR6liJ4um3XCfYWDHvIdkHYC1t MNcVHFBwmQkawxsYvgO8kXT3SaFZe4ISfB4K4CL2qp4JO+nJdlFUbZI7cz/Td9z8nHjMcWYF IQuTsWOLs/LBMTs+ANumibtw6UkiGVD3dfHJAOPNApjVr+M0P/lVmTeP8w0uVcd2syiaU5jB aht9CYATn+ytFGWZnBEEQFnqcibIaOrmoBLu2b3fKJEd8Jp7NHDSIdrvrMjYynmc6sZKUqH2 I1qOevaa8jUg7wlLJAWGfIqnu85kkqrVOkbNbk4TPub7VOqA6qG5GCNEIv6ZY7HLYd/vAkVY E8Plzq/NwLAuOWxvGrOl7OPuwVeR4hBDfcrNb990MFPpjGgACzAZyjdmYoMu8j3/MAEW4P0z F5+EYJAOZ+z212y1pchNNauehORXgjrNKsZwxwKpPY9qb84E3O9KYpwfATsqOoQ6tTgr+1BR CCwP712H+E9U5HJ0iibN/CDZFVPL1bRerHziuwuQuvE0qWg0+0SChFe9oq0KAwEkVs6ZDMB2 P16MieEEQ6StQRlvy2YBv80L1TMl3T90Bo1UUn6ARXEpcbFE0/aORH/jEXcRteb+vuik5UGY 5TsyLYdPur3TXm7XDBdmmyQVJjnJKYK9AQxj95KlXLVO38lczsFNBFRjzmoBEACyAxbvUEhd GDGNg0JhDdezyTdN8C9BFsdxyTLnSH31NRiyp1QtuxvcqGZjb2trDVuCbIzRrgMZLVgo3upr MIOx1CXEgmn23Zhh0EpdVHM8IKx9Z7V0r+rrpRWFE8/wQZngKYVi49PGoZj50ZEifEJ5qn/H Nsp2+Y+bTUjDdgWMATg9DiFMyv8fvoqgNsNyrrZTnSgoLzdxr89FGHZCoSoAK8gfgFHuO54B lI8QOfPDG9WDPJ66HCodjTlBEr/Cwq6GruxS5i2Y33YVqxvFvDa1tUtl+iJ2SWKS9kCai2DR 3BwVONJEYSDQaven/EHMlY1q8Vln3lGPsS11vSUK3QcNJjmrgYxH5KsVsf6PNRj9mp8Z1kIG qjRx08+nnyStWC0gZH6NrYyS9rpqH3j+hA2WcI7De51L4Rv9pFwzp161mvtc6eC/GxaiUGuH BNAVP0PY0fqvIC68p3rLIAW3f97uv4ce2RSQ7LbsPsimOeCo/5vgS6YQsj83E+AipPr09Caj 0hloj+hFoqiticNpmsxdWKoOsV0PftcQvBCCYuhKbZV9s5hjt9qn8CE86A5g5KqDf83Fxqm/ vXKgHNFHE5zgXGZnrmaf6resQzbvJHO0Fb0CcIohzrpPaL3YepcLDoCCgElGMGQjdCcSQ+Ci FCRl0Bvyj1YZUql+ZkptgGjikQARAQABwsFfBBgBAgAJBQJUY85qAhsMAAoJEGg1lTBwyZKw l4IQAIKHs/9po4spZDFyfDjunimEhVHqlUt7ggR1Hsl/tkvTSze8pI1P6dGp2XW6AnH1iayn yRcoyT0ZJ+Zmm4xAH1zqKjWplzqdb/dO28qk0bPso8+1oPO8oDhLm1+tY+cOvufXkBTm+whm +AyNTjaCRt6aSMnA/QHVGSJ8grrTJCoACVNhnXg/R0g90g8iV8Q+IBZyDkG0tBThaDdw1B2l asInUTeb9EiVfL/Zjdg5VWiF9LL7iS+9hTeVdR09vThQ/DhVbCNxVk+DtyBHsjOKifrVsYep WpRGBIAu3bK8eXtyvrw1igWTNs2wazJ71+0z2jMzbclKAyRHKU9JdN6Hkkgr2nPb561yjcB8 sIq1pFXKyO+nKy6SZYxOvHxCcjk2fkw6UmPU6/j/nQlj2lfOAgNVKuDLothIxzi8pndB8Jju KktE5HJqUUMXePkAYIxEQ0mMc8Po7tuXdejgPMwgP7x65xtfEqI0RuzbUioFltsp1jUaRwQZ MTsCeQDdjpgHsj+P2ZDeEKCbma4m6Ez/YWs4+zDm1X8uZDkZcfQlD9NldbKDJEXLIjYWo1PH hYepSffIWPyvBMBTW2W5FRjJ4vLRrJSUoEfJuPQ3vW9Y73foyo/qFoURHO48AinGPZ7PC7TF vUaNOTjKedrqHkaOcqB185ahG2had0xnFsDPlx5y In-Reply-To: <87h68avg81.fsf@canonical.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/13/24 15:58, Alex Murray wrote: ... > The only other data point then to mention is that all the major distros > (Debian[1], Ubuntu[2] and Fedora[3]) are still only shipping the previous > security update release (20240910) in their stable releases - *not* the > more recent release with the functional updates in 20241029 - in which > case anyone running a current stable release would then show as being > "vulnerable". I can't speak for the other distros, but for Ubuntu we > generally only ship things which are called out as specific security > fixes in our security updates *and* we generally prioritise security > updates over bug fixes (which these 'functional' updates appear be > rather than fixing actual exploitable security issues). That's a very important data point. Thanks for that. Like I said in the original changelog, I'm open to relaxing things to define old to allow folks to be a release or two behind. But I'd want to hear a lot more about _why_ the distros lag. I'd probably also have some chats to see what other folks at Intel think about it. So what would you propose the rules be? Are you suggesting that we go through the microcode changelogs for each CPU for each release and only update the "old" revisions for security issues? If there were only functional issues fixed for, say, 2 years, on a CPU would the "old" version get updated? >> So I'm leaning toward setting: >> >> TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC >> plus >> X86_BUG_OLD_MICROCODE >> >> and calling it a day. > > Does this mean you are thinking of dropping the userspace entry in the > cpu vulnerablities sysfs tree? No, I plan to keep X86_BUG_OLD_MICROCODE and the corresponding sysfs entry. > If so then I am not so concerned, since my primary concern is having > something which looks scary to users/sysadmins ("your CPU has an > unpatched vulnerablity") which they can't do anything about since > their distribution has a different definition of what counts as a > security update compared to the upstream kernel maintainers. If the > sysfs entry is dropped then this is not so visible to end-users and > hence there is less panic. Right, we don't want to unnecessarily scare anyone. But if a distro is being too slow in getting microcode out, then it would be good to inform users about known functional or security gaps they're exposed to. That's the thing we need to focus on. Not: "Can users do anything about it?" Rather: "What's best for the users?"