From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 09/10] x86/enter: Create macros to restrict/unrestrict
 Indirect Branch Speculation
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:23:18 +0100
Message-ID: <20180123102318.airsvcl5uckguo2z@gmail.com>
References: <1516476182-5153-10-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
 <CA+55aFxUEPHc7JRQG3zmxEsfmfJOiJa1QqFBKCBNb5Tt5vfiSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1516566497.9814.78.camel@infradead.org>
 <CA+55aFwOkH8RH12Dzs=hT3e7eS3Ckz9Ed6x_-9a0zs1cw9zbKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1516572013.9814.109.camel@infradead.org>
 <CA+55aFwoxXmY0u84iPT-RP8DoG+Qb8t-mh2r8RLhKVAH3jm6qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1516638426.9521.20.camel@infradead.org>
 <20180123072930.soz25cyky3u4hpgv@gmail.com>
 <20180123075358.nztpyxympwfkyi2a@gmail.com>
 <1516699832.9521.123.camel@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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>,
        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>,
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1516699832.9521.123.camel@infradead.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org


* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:

> > On SkyLake this would add an overhead of maybe 2-3 cycles per function call and 
> > obviously all this code and data would be very cache hot. Given that the average 
> > number of function calls per system call is around a dozen, this would be _much_ 
> > faster than any microcode/MSR based approach.
> 
> That's kind of neat, except you don't want it at the top of the
> function; you want it at the bottom.
> 
> If you could hijack the *return* site, then you could check for
> underflow and stuff the RSB right there. But in __fentry__ there's not
> a lot you can do other than complain that something bad is going to
> happen in the future. You know that a string of 16+ rets is going to
> happen, but you've got no gadget in *there* to deal with it when it
> does.

No, it can be done with the existing CALL instrumentation callback that 
CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y provides, by pushing a RET trampoline on the stack from 
the CALL trampoline - see my previous email.

> HJ did have patches to turn 'ret' into a form of retpoline, which I
> don't think ever even got performance-tested.

Return instrumentation is possible as well, but there are two major drawbacks:

 - GCC support for it is not as widely available and return instrumentation is 
   less tested in Linux kernel contexts

 - a major point of my suggestion is that CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y is already 
   enabled in distros here and today, so the runtime overhead to non-SkyLake CPUs 
   would be literally zero, while still allowing to fix the RSB vulnerability on 
   SkyLake.

Thanks,

	Ingo