From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5C6C433B4 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D59161466 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232542AbhEJVpN (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 17:45:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48970 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231434AbhEJVpM (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 17:45:12 -0400 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF621C061574 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 14:44:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1620683043; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lpZHZILIVURBA4uZge0VeiF3/MxcG74g/FLqlaAURhc=; b=YxBeXXWEQgJ5X2nX0hY5xOeOa3vM2NwSDUlf24gr0P2uW0IVZj7jbroySMJALdl1aB+GgU yMje+laDS5hdkKtebyV2b/0n8S0slU+nvIPz+uqLHAoKHjyatn9jDj140h78nlVT/pFm7F OhzUi3EZ0R2nz09WVlq7/Afy0zNoQ/8WRVvBxrsHF1T58uk/a0sJK8USA4mslBDM++/0zU Vw7rYPQbrlux3UuQal3XHl6IyDQ0kThJRKkuACtr5g374Kq3dN8gP9hG1QwguV6ZWKev/N 2SaLetL0SWWrxP5D580sfEQ3411R3wnrEbLHfw3jvNyx/6UFpROuIKQToaz9gw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1620683043; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lpZHZILIVURBA4uZge0VeiF3/MxcG74g/FLqlaAURhc=; b=3t+psbvTUJjOUoaFVqIThGokCXoG0I38L+HBKfPA1LyRnCAoIZa0bVRAsVnwK9Iqv94ZUp CCb1MJOFYPbOTtCA== To: "Saripalli\, RK" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, Jonathan Corbet , bsd@redhat.com, Josh Poimboeuf , Kees Cook Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] x86/cpufeatures: Implement Predictive Store Forwarding control. In-Reply-To: References: <20210505190923.276051-1-rsaripal@amd.com> <20210505190923.276051-2-rsaripal@amd.com> <87wnsamvaa.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 23:44:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87h7jagt7g.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 10 2021 at 06:10, RK Saripalli wrote: > On 5/7/2021 10:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> What's wrong with just treating this in the same way in which we treat >> all other speculative vulnerabilities and provide a consistent picture >> to the user? >> >> Something like the below. You get the idea. > > Thomas, thank you very much for the comments. > > I provided the links to the original patches which treat PSF similar to other > speculative vulnerabilities. > > Could you review them please?. The first patch is the cover letter. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210406155004.230790-1-rsaripal@amd.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210406155004.230790-2-rsaripal@amd.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210406155004.230790-3-rsaripal@amd.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210406155004.230790-4-rsaripal@amd.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210406155004.230790-5-rsaripal@amd.com/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210406155004.230790-6-rsaripal@amd.com/ They are going into the right direction, i.e. detection and reporting. Vs. mitigation control the question is whether we need the full machinery of prctl/seccomp and so forth especially under the aspect that the SSBD mitigation already covers the PSF issue. So for the start a simple on/off might be good enough. Kees, any opinions? Thanks, tglx