arch/x86/entry/common.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c | 11 +---------- arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c | 6 ------ arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c | 7 ++++++- arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 + arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 8 +++++++- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 7 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Syscall hardening (i.e., converting the syscall indirect branch to a
series of direct branches) may cause performance regressions in certain
scenarios. Only use the syscall hardening when indirect branches are
considered unsafe.
Fixes: 1e3ad78334a6 ("x86/syscall: Don't force use of indirect calls for system calls")
Reviewed-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
---
v3:
- fix X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE value
arch/x86/entry/common.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c | 11 +----------
arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c | 6 ------
arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c | 7 ++++++-
arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 8 +++++++-
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
7 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/common.c b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
index 6de50b80702e..c0f8116291e4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
@@ -49,7 +49,10 @@ static __always_inline bool do_syscall_x64(struct pt_regs *regs, int nr)
if (likely(unr < NR_syscalls)) {
unr = array_index_nospec(unr, NR_syscalls);
- regs->ax = x64_sys_call(regs, unr);
+ if (likely(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE)))
+ regs->ax = sys_call_table[unr](regs);
+ else
+ regs->ax = x64_sys_call(regs, unr);
return true;
}
return false;
@@ -66,7 +69,10 @@ static __always_inline bool do_syscall_x32(struct pt_regs *regs, int nr)
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_X32_ABI) && likely(xnr < X32_NR_syscalls)) {
xnr = array_index_nospec(xnr, X32_NR_syscalls);
- regs->ax = x32_sys_call(regs, xnr);
+ if (likely(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE)))
+ regs->ax = x32_sys_call_table[xnr](regs);
+ else
+ regs->ax = x32_sys_call(regs, xnr);
return true;
}
return false;
@@ -162,7 +168,10 @@ static __always_inline void do_syscall_32_irqs_on(struct pt_regs *regs, int nr)
if (likely(unr < IA32_NR_syscalls)) {
unr = array_index_nospec(unr, IA32_NR_syscalls);
- regs->ax = ia32_sys_call(regs, unr);
+ if (likely(cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE)))
+ regs->ax = ia32_sys_call_table[unr](regs);
+ else
+ regs->ax = ia32_sys_call(regs, unr);
} else if (nr != -1) {
regs->ax = __ia32_sys_ni_syscall(regs);
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c
index c2235bae17ef..aab31760b4e3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c
@@ -14,25 +14,16 @@
#endif
#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) extern long __ia32_##sym(const struct pt_regs *);
-
#include <asm/syscalls_32.h>
#undef __SYSCALL
-/*
- * The sys_call_table[] is no longer used for system calls, but
- * kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c still wants to know the system
- * call address.
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) __ia32_##sym,
-const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[] = {
+const sys_call_ptr_t ia32_sys_call_table[] = {
#include <asm/syscalls_32.h>
};
#undef __SYSCALL
-#endif
#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) case nr: return __ia32_##sym(regs);
-
long ia32_sys_call(const struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int nr)
{
switch (nr) {
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c
index 33b3f09e6f15..96ea1f8a1d3f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c
@@ -11,11 +11,6 @@
#include <asm/syscalls_64.h>
#undef __SYSCALL
-/*
- * The sys_call_table[] is no longer used for system calls, but
- * kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c still wants to know the system
- * call address.
- */
#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) __x64_##sym,
const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[] = {
#include <asm/syscalls_64.h>
@@ -23,7 +18,6 @@ const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[] = {
#undef __SYSCALL
#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) case nr: return __x64_##sym(regs);
-
long x64_sys_call(const struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int nr)
{
switch (nr) {
diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c
index 03de4a932131..5aef4230faca 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c
@@ -11,8 +11,13 @@
#include <asm/syscalls_x32.h>
#undef __SYSCALL
-#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) case nr: return __x64_##sym(regs);
+#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) __x64_##sym,
+const sys_call_ptr_t x32_sys_call_table[] = {
+#include <asm/syscalls_x32.h>
+};
+#undef __SYSCALL
+#define __SYSCALL(nr, sym) case nr: return __x64_##sym(regs);
long x32_sys_call(const struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int nr)
{
switch (nr) {
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
index 3c7434329661..f0ea66cbd5f1 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
@@ -470,6 +470,7 @@
#define X86_FEATURE_BHI_CTRL (21*32+ 2) /* "" BHI_DIS_S HW control available */
#define X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_BHB_HW (21*32+ 3) /* "" BHI_DIS_S HW control enabled */
#define X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_BHB_LOOP_ON_VMEXIT (21*32+ 4) /* "" Clear branch history at vmexit using SW loop */
+#define X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE (21*32+ 5) /* "" Indirect branches aren't vulnerable to Spectre v2 */
/*
* BUG word(s)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h
index 2fc7bc3863ff..dfb59521244c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h
@@ -16,14 +16,20 @@
#include <asm/thread_info.h> /* for TS_COMPAT */
#include <asm/unistd.h>
-/* This is used purely for kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c */
typedef long (*sys_call_ptr_t)(const struct pt_regs *);
extern const sys_call_ptr_t sys_call_table[];
+#if defined(CONFIG_X86_32)
+#define ia32_sys_call_table sys_call_table
+#else
/*
* These may not exist, but still put the prototypes in so we
* can use IS_ENABLED().
*/
+extern const sys_call_ptr_t ia32_sys_call_table[];
+extern const sys_call_ptr_t x32_sys_call_table[];
+#endif
+
extern long ia32_sys_call(const struct pt_regs *, unsigned int nr);
extern long x32_sys_call(const struct pt_regs *, unsigned int nr);
extern long x64_sys_call(const struct pt_regs *, unsigned int nr);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
index ca295b0c1eee..dcb97cc2758f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
@@ -1664,6 +1664,15 @@ static void __init bhi_select_mitigation(void)
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64))
return;
+ /*
+ * There's no hardware mitigation in place, so mark indirect branches
+ * as unsafe.
+ *
+ * One could argue the SW loop makes indirect branches safe again, but
+ * Linus prefers it this way.
+ */
+ setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE);
+
/* Mitigate KVM by default */
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_CLEAR_BHB_LOOP_ON_VMEXIT);
pr_info("Spectre BHI mitigation: SW BHB clearing on vm exit\n");
@@ -1678,6 +1687,21 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void)
enum spectre_v2_mitigation_cmd cmd = spectre_v2_parse_cmdline();
enum spectre_v2_mitigation mode = SPECTRE_V2_NONE;
+ /*
+ * X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE indicates whether indirect calls can be
+ * considered safe. That means either:
+ *
+ * - the CPU isn't vulnerable to Spectre v2 or its variants;
+ *
+ * - a hardware mitigation is in place (e.g., IBRS, BHI_DIS_S); or
+ *
+ * - the user turned off mitigations altogether.
+ *
+ * Assume innocence until proven guilty: set the cap bit now, then
+ * clear it later if/when needed.
+ */
+ setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE);
+
/*
* If the CPU is not affected and the command line mode is NONE or AUTO
* then nothing to do.
@@ -1764,11 +1788,16 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void)
break;
case SPECTRE_V2_LFENCE:
+ setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE);
+ fallthrough;
case SPECTRE_V2_EIBRS_LFENCE:
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_LFENCE);
- fallthrough;
+ setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE);
+ break;
case SPECTRE_V2_RETPOLINE:
+ setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE);
+ fallthrough;
case SPECTRE_V2_EIBRS_RETPOLINE:
setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE);
break;
--
2.44.0
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:02:21PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Syscall hardening (i.e., converting the syscall indirect branch to a > series of direct branches) may cause performance regressions in certain > scenarios. Maybe spell out the scenarios, as this just sounds like hand waiving right now..
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:50:55PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:02:21PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Syscall hardening (i.e., converting the syscall indirect branch to a > > series of direct branches) may cause performance regressions in certain > > scenarios. > > Maybe spell out the scenarios, as this just sounds like hand waiving > right now.. Will do. -- Josh
On 17/04/2024 12:02 am, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > index ca295b0c1eee..dcb97cc2758f 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > @@ -1678,6 +1687,21 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void) > enum spectre_v2_mitigation_cmd cmd = spectre_v2_parse_cmdline(); > enum spectre_v2_mitigation mode = SPECTRE_V2_NONE; > > + /* > + * X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE indicates whether indirect calls can be > + * considered safe. That means either: > + * > + * - the CPU isn't vulnerable to Spectre v2 or its variants; > + * > + * - a hardware mitigation is in place (e.g., IBRS, BHI_DIS_S); or > + * > + * - the user turned off mitigations altogether. > + * > + * Assume innocence until proven guilty: set the cap bit now, then > + * clear it later if/when needed. > + */ > + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE); Following on from the (re)discovery that X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE is a poor name given what it *actually* does, can I recommend s/SAFE/OK/ here? This flag really is "do I want indirect branches or not", which - as noted here - is more than just a judgement of whether indirect branches are "safe". ~Andrew
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:14:26PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 17/04/2024 12:02 am, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > index ca295b0c1eee..dcb97cc2758f 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > @@ -1678,6 +1687,21 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void) > > enum spectre_v2_mitigation_cmd cmd = spectre_v2_parse_cmdline(); > > enum spectre_v2_mitigation mode = SPECTRE_V2_NONE; > > > > + /* > > + * X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE indicates whether indirect calls can be > > + * considered safe. That means either: > > + * > > + * - the CPU isn't vulnerable to Spectre v2 or its variants; > > + * > > + * - a hardware mitigation is in place (e.g., IBRS, BHI_DIS_S); or > > + * > > + * - the user turned off mitigations altogether. > > + * > > + * Assume innocence until proven guilty: set the cap bit now, then > > + * clear it later if/when needed. > > + */ > > + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE); > > Following on from the (re)discovery that X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE is a poor > name given what it *actually* does, can I recommend s/SAFE/OK/ here? Or simply X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH. > This flag really is "do I want indirect branches or not", which - as > noted here - is more than just a judgement of whether indirect branches > are "safe".
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:45:14AM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:14:26PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 17/04/2024 12:02 am, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > > index ca295b0c1eee..dcb97cc2758f 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > > @@ -1678,6 +1687,21 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void) > > > enum spectre_v2_mitigation_cmd cmd = spectre_v2_parse_cmdline(); > > > enum spectre_v2_mitigation mode = SPECTRE_V2_NONE; > > > > > > + /* > > > + * X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE indicates whether indirect calls can be > > > + * considered safe. That means either: > > > + * > > > + * - the CPU isn't vulnerable to Spectre v2 or its variants; > > > + * > > > + * - a hardware mitigation is in place (e.g., IBRS, BHI_DIS_S); or > > > + * > > > + * - the user turned off mitigations altogether. > > > + * > > > + * Assume innocence until proven guilty: set the cap bit now, then > > > + * clear it later if/when needed. > > > + */ > > > + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE); > > > > Following on from the (re)discovery that X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE is a poor > > name given what it *actually* does, can I recommend s/SAFE/OK/ here? > > Or simply X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH. > > > This flag really is "do I want indirect branches or not", which - as > > noted here - is more than just a judgement of whether indirect branches > > are "safe". X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH sounds good. It's a bit long but does describe it better. -- Josh
On 17/04/2024 6:57 pm, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:45:14AM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:14:26PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> On 17/04/2024 12:02 am, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c >>>> index ca295b0c1eee..dcb97cc2758f 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c >>>> @@ -1678,6 +1687,21 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void) >>>> enum spectre_v2_mitigation_cmd cmd = spectre_v2_parse_cmdline(); >>>> enum spectre_v2_mitigation mode = SPECTRE_V2_NONE; >>>> >>>> + /* >>>> + * X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE indicates whether indirect calls can be >>>> + * considered safe. That means either: >>>> + * >>>> + * - the CPU isn't vulnerable to Spectre v2 or its variants; >>>> + * >>>> + * - a hardware mitigation is in place (e.g., IBRS, BHI_DIS_S); or >>>> + * >>>> + * - the user turned off mitigations altogether. >>>> + * >>>> + * Assume innocence until proven guilty: set the cap bit now, then >>>> + * clear it later if/when needed. >>>> + */ >>>> + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE); >>> Following on from the (re)discovery that X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE is a poor >>> name given what it *actually* does, can I recommend s/SAFE/OK/ here? >> Or simply X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH. >> >>> This flag really is "do I want indirect branches or not", which - as >>> noted here - is more than just a judgement of whether indirect branches >>> are "safe". > X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH sounds good. It's a bit long but does > describe it better. Works for me. Definitely an improvement over SAFE. ~Andrew
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 07:01:54PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 17/04/2024 6:57 pm, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:45:14AM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:14:26PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >>> On 17/04/2024 12:02 am, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > >>>> index ca295b0c1eee..dcb97cc2758f 100644 > >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > >>>> @@ -1678,6 +1687,21 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void) > >>>> enum spectre_v2_mitigation_cmd cmd = spectre_v2_parse_cmdline(); > >>>> enum spectre_v2_mitigation mode = SPECTRE_V2_NONE; > >>>> > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE indicates whether indirect calls can be > >>>> + * considered safe. That means either: > >>>> + * > >>>> + * - the CPU isn't vulnerable to Spectre v2 or its variants; > >>>> + * > >>>> + * - a hardware mitigation is in place (e.g., IBRS, BHI_DIS_S); or > >>>> + * > >>>> + * - the user turned off mitigations altogether. > >>>> + * > >>>> + * Assume innocence until proven guilty: set the cap bit now, then > >>>> + * clear it later if/when needed. > >>>> + */ > >>>> + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE); > >>> Following on from the (re)discovery that X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE is a poor > >>> name given what it *actually* does, can I recommend s/SAFE/OK/ here? > >> Or simply X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH. > >> > >>> This flag really is "do I want indirect branches or not", which - as > >>> noted here - is more than just a judgement of whether indirect branches > >>> are "safe". > > X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH sounds good. It's a bit long but does > > describe it better. > > Works for me. Definitely an improvement over SAFE. USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH is now irking me: "use indirect branch for what? when? why?" At the moment I'm leaning towards Andrew's suggestion of X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_OK as it at least says it's "ok" (safe or don't care) to use indirect branches when desired (typically performance raisins). I'll probably go with that (or maybe X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_BRANCH_OK) unless anybody yells. -- Josh
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 05:48:45PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 07:01:54PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 17/04/2024 6:57 pm, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:45:14AM -0700, Pawan Gupta wrote: > > >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 04:14:26PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > >>> On 17/04/2024 12:02 am, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > >>>> index ca295b0c1eee..dcb97cc2758f 100644 > > >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c > > >>>> @@ -1678,6 +1687,21 @@ static void __init spectre_v2_select_mitigation(void) > > >>>> enum spectre_v2_mitigation_cmd cmd = spectre_v2_parse_cmdline(); > > >>>> enum spectre_v2_mitigation mode = SPECTRE_V2_NONE; > > >>>> > > >>>> + /* > > >>>> + * X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE indicates whether indirect calls can be > > >>>> + * considered safe. That means either: > > >>>> + * > > >>>> + * - the CPU isn't vulnerable to Spectre v2 or its variants; > > >>>> + * > > >>>> + * - a hardware mitigation is in place (e.g., IBRS, BHI_DIS_S); or > > >>>> + * > > >>>> + * - the user turned off mitigations altogether. > > >>>> + * > > >>>> + * Assume innocence until proven guilty: set the cap bit now, then > > >>>> + * clear it later if/when needed. > > >>>> + */ > > >>>> + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE); > > >>> Following on from the (re)discovery that X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE is a poor > > >>> name given what it *actually* does, can I recommend s/SAFE/OK/ here? > > >> Or simply X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH. > > >> > > >>> This flag really is "do I want indirect branches or not", which - as > > >>> noted here - is more than just a judgement of whether indirect branches > > >>> are "safe". > > > X86_FEATURE_USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH sounds good. It's a bit long but does > > > describe it better. > > > > Works for me. Definitely an improvement over SAFE. > > USE_INDIRECT_BRANCH is now irking me: "use indirect branch for what? > when? why?" I don't think feature bits in general tries to answer when & why. And it shouldn't be the case, otherwise we will need multi-line names. IMO, it should just tell what the feature means. But, I am not too hung up on name, I am fine with X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_OK or anything similar.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:02:21PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > Syscall hardening (i.e., converting the syscall indirect branch to a > series of direct branches) may cause performance regressions in certain > scenarios. Only use the syscall hardening when indirect branches are > considered unsafe. > > Fixes: 1e3ad78334a6 ("x86/syscall: Don't force use of indirect calls for system calls") > Reviewed-by: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org> > --- > v3: > - fix X86_FEATURE_INDIRECT_SAFE value > > arch/x86/entry/common.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- > arch/x86/entry/syscall_32.c | 11 +---------- > arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c | 6 ------ > arch/x86/entry/syscall_x32.c | 7 ++++++- > arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 + > arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 8 +++++++- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 7 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) I poked at this a bit and can't find anything that I can complain about so Acked-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@alien8.de> I'll pick it up into urgent if no one complains soon. Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.