From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"andrew.cooper3@citrix.com" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: "keescook@chromium.org" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"hjl.tools@gmail.com" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH] x86: Add straight-line-speculation mitigation
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:33:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6215f764fffc41c39c74a871124aa4ed@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YXqNAJI3NJz3SQue@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 28 October 2021 12:44
>
> This little patch makes use of an upcomming GCC feature to mitigate
> straight-line-speculation for x86:
...
This all generates the instruction sequence:
ret
int3
because there are (apparently) times when the cpu will speculatively
execute the instruction following a 'ret'.
I suspect this is likely to have a small performance impact
on at least some cpu that has not been mentioned by anyone.
As well as the slight increase in code size I can think of
two more problems.
1) The cpu may not be able to quickly 'abort' the speculative
execution of the 'int3' instruction.
Since the is a slow instruction (not as slow as 'tan'!)
this might add quite a few clocks.
ISTR there have always been warnings about the problem
of speculative execution of trig functions - eg if non-code
follows a 'ret'.
2) int3 is almost certainly slow to decode.
Plausibly this might block the decoders from decoding
from the branch/return target.
Although I suspect the I-cache fetch will take longer
unless the decode time is really horrid.
The tables I have don't give execution times for int3.
While slightly longer, it may be that 'jmp .' is actually
a better instruction than 'int3'.
Since it will block speculative execution while still
being fast to decode and (not) execute.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-29 9:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-28 11:44 [RFC][PATCH] x86: Add straight-line-speculation mitigation Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-28 16:51 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-28 17:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-28 20:06 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-10-28 21:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-29 9:33 ` David Laight [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6215f764fffc41c39c74a871124aa4ed@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox