From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/10] x86/mm: Only flush indirect branches when switching
 into non dumpable process
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:22:24 +0100
Message-ID: <20180121112224.GH2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1516476182-5153-1-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
 <1516476182-5153-5-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.or
To: KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1516476182-5153-5-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 08:22:55PM +0100, KarimAllah Ahmed wrote:
> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Flush indirect branches when switching into a process that marked
> itself non dumpable.  This protects high value processes like gpg
> better, without having too high performance overhead.

So if I understand it right, this is only needed if the 'other'
executable itself is susceptible to spectre. If say someone audited gpg
for spectre-v1 and build it with retpoline, it would be safe to not
issue the IBPB, right?

So would it make sense to provide an ELF flag / personality thing such
that userspace can indicate its spectre-safe?

I realize that this is all future work, because so far auditing for v1
is a lot of pain (we need better tools), but would it be something that
makes sense in the longer term?