From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Chen Subject: Re: [RFC 09/10] x86/enter: Create macros to restrict/unrestrict Indirect Branch Speculation Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:47:36 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1516476182-5153-1-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de> <1516476182-5153-10-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de> <243BE571-AF73-44B3-8D17-193F9E07686A@amacapital.net> <4e01a7a9-29e4-adcc-3f53-550fb7f3d370@amd.com> <1516724457.9521.156.camel@amazon.co.uk> <20180123224956.GQ7844@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <1516749276.13558.25.camel@amazon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andy Lutomirski , KarimAllah Ahmed , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Andy Lutomirski , Arjan van de Ven , Ashok Raj , Asit Mallick , Borislav Petkov , Dan Williams , Dave Hansen , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "H . Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Janakarajan Natarajan , Joerg Roedel , Jun Nakajima , Laura Abbott , Linus Torvalds , Masami Hiramatsu , Andi Kleen , Tom Lendacky Return-path: Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:45287 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932083AbeAXAri (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:47:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1516749276.13558.25.camel@amazon.co.uk> Content-Language: en-US Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/23/2018 03:14 PM, Woodhouse, David wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 14:49 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: >>> Not sure. Maybe to start, the answer might be to allow it to be set for >>> the ultra-paranoid, but in general don't enable it by default. Having it >>> enabled would be an alternative to someone deciding to disable SMT, since >>> that would have even more of a performance impact. >> >> I agree. A reasonable strategy would be to only enable it for >> processes that have dumpable disabled. This should be already set for >> high value processes like GPG, and allows others to opt-in if >> they need to. > > That seems to make sense, and I think was the solution we were > approaching for IBPB on context switch too, right? > > Are we generally agreed on dumpable as the criterion for both of those? > It is a reasonable approach. Let a process who needs max security opt in with disabled dumpable. It can have a flush with IBPB clear before starting to run, and have STIBP set while running. Tim