LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nadav Amit <>
To: Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc: Paul Turner <>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
	Borislav Petkov <>,
	LKML <>,
	Andy Lutomirsky <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Jann Horn <>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: Speculative execution warnings
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 18:53:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

> On May 14, 2019, at 10:15 AM, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
> On May 14, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Nadav Amit <> wrote:
>>> On May 14, 2019, at 1:00 AM, Paul Turner <> wrote:
>>> From: Nadav Amit <>
>>> Date: Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:45 PM
>>> To: <>
>>> Cc: Borislav Petkov, <>, Nadav Amit, Andy
>>> Lutomirsky, Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra, Thomas Gleixner, Jann Horn
>>>> It may be useful to check in runtime whether certain assertions are
>>>> violated even during speculative execution. This can allow to avoid
>>>> adding unnecessary memory fences and at the same time check that no data
>>>> leak channels exist.
>>>> For example, adding such checks can show that allocating zeroed pages
>>>> can return speculatively non-zeroed pages (the first qword is not
>>>> zero).  [This might be a problem when the page-fault handler performs
>>>> software page-walk, for example.]
>>>> Introduce SPEC_WARN_ON(), which checks in runtime whether a certain
>>>> condition is violated during speculative execution. The condition should
>>>> be computed without branches, e.g., using bitwise operators. The check
>>>> will wait for the condition to be realized (i.e., not speculated), and
>>>> if the assertion is violated, a warning will be thrown.
>>>> Warnings can be provided in one of two modes: precise and imprecise.
>>>> Both mode are not perfect. The precise mode does not always make it easy
>>>> to understand which assertion was broken, but instead points to a point
>>>> in the execution somewhere around the point in which the assertion was
>>>> violated.  In addition, it prints a warning for each violation (unlike
>>>> WARN_ONCE() like behavior).
>>>> The imprecise mode, on the other hand, can sometimes throw the wrong
>>>> indication, specifically if the control flow has changed between the
>>>> speculative execution and the actual one. Note that it is not a
>>>> false-positive, it just means that the output would mislead the user to
>>>> think the wrong assertion was broken.
>>>> There are some more limitations. Since the mechanism requires an
>>>> indirect branch, it should not be used in production systems that are
>>>> susceptible for Spectre v2. The mechanism requires TSX and performance
>>>> counters that are only available in skylake+. There is a hidden
>>>> assumption that TSX is not used in the kernel for anything else, other
>>>> than this mechanism.
>>> Nice trick!
>> “Illusion." [ ignore if you don’t know the reference ]
>>> Can you eliminate the indirect call by forcing an access fault to
>>> abort the transaction instead, e.g. "cmove 0, $1”?
>>> (If this works, it may also allow support on older architectures as
>>> the RTM_RETIRED.ABORT* events go back further I believe?)
>> I don’t think it would work. The whole problem is that we need a counter
>> that is updated during execution and not retirement. I tried several
>> counters and could not find other appropriate ones.
>> The idea behind the implementation is to affect the control flow through
>> data dependency. I may be able to do something similar without an indirect
>> branch. I’ll take a page, put the XABORT on the page and make the page NX.
>> Then, a direct jump would go to this page. The conditional-mov would change
>> the PTE to X if the assertion is violated. There should be a page-walk even
>> if the CPU finds the entry in the TLB, since this entry is NX.
> I think you only get a page walk if the TLB entry is not-present. I’d be a
> bit surprised if the CPU is willing to execute, even speculatively, from
> speculatively written data. Good luck!

I guess you are right (although I didn’t try). IIRC, Jann Horn once
explained to me that if CPUs used PTEs that were written speculatively, this
would have been a correctness issue, since the PTE needs to get to the TLB
before it is used.

I’ll try a different path (not concrete idea which), assuming there is an

      reply	other threads:[~2019-05-16 18:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-10 19:25 Nadav Amit
2019-05-11  3:15 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-05-14  8:00 ` Paul Turner
2019-05-14 17:00   ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-14 17:15     ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-16 18:53       ` Nadav Amit [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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC] x86: Speculative execution warnings' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).