Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] Optionally flush L1D on context switch

[Singh, Balbir]

On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 12:19 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:01:24AM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Implement a mechanism to selectively flush the L1D cache. The goal is to
> > allow tasks that are paranoid due to the recent snoop assisted data
> > sampling
> > vulnerabilites, to flush their L1D on being switched out.  This protects
> > their data from being snooped or leaked via side channels after the task
> > has context switched out.
> > 
> > There are two scenarios we might want to protect against, a task leaving
> > the CPU with data still in L1D (which is the main concern of this patch),
> > the second scenario is a malicious task coming in (not so well trusted)
> > for which we want to clean up the cache before it starts. Only the case
> > for the former is addressed.
> > 
> > A new thread_info flag TIF_SPEC_FLUSH_L1D is added to track tasks which
> > opt-into L1D flushing. cpu_tlbstate.last_user_mm_spec is used to convert
> > the TIF flags into mm state (per cpu via last_user_mm_spec) in
> > cond_mitigation(), which then used to do decide when to call flush_l1d().
> > 
> > Add prctl()'s to opt-in to the L1D cache on context switch out, the
> > existing mechanisms of tracking prev_mm via cpu_tlbstate is
> > reused to track state of the tasks and to flush the L1D cache.
> > The prctl interface is generic and can be ported over to other
> > architectures.
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <sblbir@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of __weak (I like CONFIGs better), but that's no
> enough to NAK this. ;) Thanks for the prctl() change!
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 

Thanks, the CONFIG_* seemed a bit much for two functions.

Balbir Singh.