diff mbox series

[v2,01/19] Documentation: document array_ptr

Message ID 151571799008.27429.12325141216769795517.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
State Superseded
Headers show
Series [v2,01/19] Documentation: document array_ptr | expand

Commit Message

Dan Williams Jan. 12, 2018, 12:46 a.m. UTC
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>


Document the rationale and usage of the new array_ptr() helper.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>

---
 Documentation/speculation.txt |  142 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 142 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/speculation.txt

Comments

Geert Uytterhoeven Jan. 12, 2018, 10:38 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi Dan,

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

>

> Document the rationale and usage of the new array_ptr() helper.

>

> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>

> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>


Thanks for the update!

> --- /dev/null

> +++ b/Documentation/speculation.txt

> @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@

> +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 idx) {


One more opening curly brace to move to the next line.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
Kees Cook Jan. 16, 2018, 9:01 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

>

> Document the rationale and usage of the new array_ptr() helper.

>

> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>

> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>

> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>

> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>

> ---

>  Documentation/speculation.txt |  142 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> [...]

> +NULL is returned. Additionally, array_ptr() an out-of-bounds poitner is

> +not propagated to code which is speculatively executed.


I think this meant to say:

Additionally, array_ptr() of an out-of-bounds pointer is
not propagated to code which is speculatively executed.

Other than that:

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>


-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/speculation.txt b/Documentation/speculation.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..a4d465fd42cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/speculation.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ 
+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 idx) {
+		if (idx >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS)
+			return 0;
+		else
+			return array[idx];
+	}
+
+Which, on arm64, may be compiled to an assembly sequence such as:
+
+	CMP	<idx>, #MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS
+	B.LT	less
+	MOV	<returnval>, #0
+	RET
+  less:
+	LDR	<returnval>, [<array>, <idx>]
+	RET
+
+It is possible that a CPU mis-predicts the conditional branch, and
+speculatively loads array[idx], even if idx >= 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 idx)
+	{
+		int val1, val2,
+
+		val1 = load_array(arr1, idx);
+		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_ptr() helper in <asm/barrier.h> can be used to prevent
+information from being leaked via side-channels.
+
+A call to array_ptr(arr, idx, sz) returns a sanitized pointer to
+arr[idx] only if idx falls in the [0, sz) interval. When idx < 0 or idx > sz,
+NULL is returned. Additionally, array_ptr() an out-of-bounds poitner is
+not propagated to code which is speculatively executed.
+
+This can be used to protect the earlier load_array() example:
+
+	int load_array(int *array, unsigned int idx)
+	{
+		int *elem;
+
+		elem = array_ptr(array, idx, MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS);
+		if (elem)
+			return *elem;
+		else
+			return 0;
+	}
+
+This can also be used in situations where multiple fields on a structure are
+accessed:
+
+	struct foo array[SIZE];
+	int a, b;
+
+	void do_thing(int idx)
+	{
+		struct foo *elem;
+
+		elem = array_ptr(array, idx, SIZE);
+		if (elem) {
+			a = elem->field_a;
+			b = elem->field_b;
+		}
+	}
+
+It is imperative that the returned pointer is used. Pointers which are
+generated separately are subject to a number of potential CPU and compiler
+optimizations, and may still be used speculatively. For example, this means
+that the following sequence is unsafe:
+
+	struct foo array[SIZE];
+	int a, b;
+
+	void do_thing(int idx)
+	{
+		if (array_ptr(array, idx, SIZE) != NULL) {
+			// unsafe as wrong pointer is used
+			a = array[idx].field_a;
+			b = array[idx].field_b;
+		}
+	}
+
+Similarly, it is unsafe to compare the returned pointer with other pointers,
+as this may permit the compiler to substitute one pointer with another,
+permitting speculation. For example, the following sequence is unsafe:
+
+	struct foo array[SIZE];
+	int a, b;
+
+	void do_thing(int idx)
+	{
+		struct foo *elem = array_ptr(array, idx, size);
+
+		// unsafe due to pointer substitution
+		if (elem == &array[idx]) {
+			a = elem->field_a;
+			b = elem->field_b;
+		}
+	}
+