From patchwork Fri Feb 9 13:39:25 2018 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Greg Kroah-Hartman X-Patchwork-Id: 10209033 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263AC60236 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1627C29816 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id 0A12529823; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:43:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mother.openwall.net (mother.openwall.net [195.42.179.200]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B0EBB29816 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:43:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 7903 invoked by uid 550); 9 Feb 2018 13:43:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Delivered-To: mailing list kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 7831 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2018 13:43:00 -0000 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , Will Deacon , Dan Williams , Thomas Gleixner , Kees Cook , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet , Peter Zijlstra , kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, alan@linux.intel.com, David Woodhouse Subject: [PATCH 4.9 56/92] Documentation: Document array_index_nospec Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:39:25 +0100 Message-Id: <20180209133935.257746808@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.16.1 In-Reply-To: <20180209133931.211869118@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180209133931.211869118@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.65 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Mark Rutland (cherry picked from commit f84a56f73dddaeac1dba8045b007f742f61cd2da) Document the rationale and usage of the new array_index_nospec() helper. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland Signed-off-by: Will Deacon Signed-off-by: Dan Williams Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Reviewed-by: Kees Cook Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: alan@linux.intel.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/151727413645.33451.15878817161436755393.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- Documentation/speculation.txt | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/speculation.txt --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/speculation.txt @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ +This document explains potential effects of speculation, and how undesirable +effects can be mitigated portably using common APIs. + +=========== +Speculation +=========== + +To improve performance and minimize average latencies, many contemporary CPUs +employ speculative execution techniques such as branch prediction, performing +work which may be discarded at a later stage. + +Typically speculative execution cannot be observed from architectural state, +such as the contents of registers. However, in some cases it is possible to +observe its impact on microarchitectural state, such as the presence or +absence of data in caches. Such state may form side-channels which can be +observed to extract secret information. + +For example, in the presence of branch prediction, it is possible for bounds +checks to be ignored by code which is speculatively executed. Consider the +following code: + + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) + { + if (index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS) + return 0; + else + return array[index]; + } + +Which, on arm64, may be compiled to an assembly sequence such as: + + CMP , #MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS + B.LT less + MOV , #0 + RET + less: + LDR , [, ] + RET + +It is possible that a CPU mis-predicts the conditional branch, and +speculatively loads array[index], even if index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS. This +value will subsequently be discarded, but the speculated load may affect +microarchitectural state which can be subsequently measured. + +More complex sequences involving multiple dependent memory accesses may +result in sensitive information being leaked. Consider the following +code, building on the prior example: + + int load_dependent_arrays(int *arr1, int *arr2, int index) + { + int val1, val2, + + val1 = load_array(arr1, index); + val2 = load_array(arr2, val1); + + return val2; + } + +Under speculation, the first call to load_array() may return the value +of an out-of-bounds address, while the second call will influence +microarchitectural state dependent on this value. This may provide an +arbitrary read primitive. + +==================================== +Mitigating speculation side-channels +==================================== + +The kernel provides a generic API to ensure that bounds checks are +respected even under speculation. Architectures which are affected by +speculation-based side-channels are expected to implement these +primitives. + +The array_index_nospec() helper in can be used to +prevent information from being leaked via side-channels. + +A call to array_index_nospec(index, size) returns a sanitized index +value that is bounded to [0, size) even under cpu speculation +conditions. + +This can be used to protect the earlier load_array() example: + + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) + { + if (index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS) + return 0; + else { + index = array_index_nospec(index, MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS); + return array[index]; + } + }