From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-181787-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 896ED1382C5
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:18:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 082ACE0952;
Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:18:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pl0-x231.google.com (mail-pl0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::231])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96485E093E
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 16:18:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pl0-x231.google.com with SMTP id z5so1282078plo.10
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:18:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to;
bh=OehZ5FWbbR4BnP/kXMGeYC3ssNO7EJezsjJ+Gda1plY=;
b=rRh6cQpj2XflCuw3GS3M/liOSV6NB/Y+d7Am+mCpq8E/Ghw/cYc6HC6GYjrWd2J1P5
U0jWnmg4Xp49F3TUscYKiIoY1fFRaUEG0UwYA6CHPP9dqZ+Ew99XlVgXWCezFQWzx5D/
s8lQfYluf6GZiPY/T+q8EkhPAPkfullYV56Dr8MR0sGL+zZEylg8tQXBvfC9lC7k9Hcn
lMYfjwBPcXLHmwn0ZhQDj/VGFJXJk+Mmih6BNgJ+4UC1Q6sIWVtM0FZnZH/7yLeVcpVd
s+LPhnRnYhUPgirzXeoSczQuOH8g/ZPT4MtHC/QgaEkFnzsJIN45ZI8SciAZWoCCPS3N
AULg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=OehZ5FWbbR4BnP/kXMGeYC3ssNO7EJezsjJ+Gda1plY=;
b=WXTrh4/c8BcQ9J/w6knNlkX5IQIWB3WFy9qgQHyo00UU4CaV+eXDUXwAFDxsDbroXZ
eTozdLBckXOgRMi4J8d4Rkt7V5oB3WAXuem6h09lzj/phMXQP4wJhjJflyffTup/mFIA
YSyGUN/qR0s56yw4lzN5C5OnbiWNlHjWg/UUZtxJc0paPk1aRBkj+T4qLppFXcM+LFyb
2GFC9LpK004RSGYTM4BnRK0zRGHs4oy3U7RaOfxihrJnDmIzA4fIHjGj7/7OdE+SCPFA
T6VUCTcKYG+KMbWYU8rul5Q7CF9RK3FoYI1+t3tej6OrsRnIILccrvgUXPMV3SxHd9UY
EEzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mKSS1UYaCGxauiUkBYur5gXmlh9zGmIAq3lvx3l/QD1KgBAGD0J
qaLkmUkzpRDXpc/3GX+AM7OEUpFxmrS2GTNvHkoozDCv
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouiEi9jRbLyKs7mMh83EKJj0zNi6XeSWxO1mJ0UYJApR9svMxQRmwu4ONyhr+yvaG3ycGwym31AFdffpb1jQC4=
X-Received: by 10.84.251.143 with SMTP id w15mr66078pll.221.1515082724343;
Thu, 04 Jan 2018 08:18:44 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.100.151.169 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Jan 2018 08:18:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAD4mYjC_s3c+MBDY2VEoOZZ-raoXuEnq1P3JKtV63B5T-nOCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADX8ZBLJttMUsScnOk8jVUp_f0SvT_iLebGQmXjWK9gsO=DK8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC=wYCH+cTYoMrRtQZLeEvWuEoRb_uZcLs=m5twwUdF322GV_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAC=wYCFiJe+MkTrSBCVR11fTvsRH7U5sbnxf60VYOoA4tHyQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
<92ab5d0f-6111-cdec-5443-4f0cb0712eaf@charter.net> <CAGfcS_k3ycWn60Z8_ozORZD6cFMiuK699wT0_DRb-rVPAHi5rw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAD4mYjC_s3c+MBDY2VEoOZZ-raoXuEnq1P3JKtV63B5T-nOCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:18:43 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: n_ZwiK0DV4BncZSnzMXlbWBIRpA
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_mHspsszbin+GCo3wQzoKjYWkJ9soEdR_sAv50qB=Bbug@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Expect a ~15% average slowdown if you use an Intel processor
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: 17ee28a3-44c2-492d-8a4e-d2b642333787
X-Archives-Hash: 921ed18a30bcb9e9a566e0cd382a619b
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 10:44 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am still working through the information myself, but it looks like
> BPF filters are an easy way to make sure you have something to look
> for in kernelspace.
My understanding is that for exploit 1 to work you need to have the
kernel execute some code for you, and BPF is a way to do that because
it is a JIT compiler.
The bits about finding where BPF is in kernelspace is for exploit 2,
which requires branching into that code, which requires knowing its
address.
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:44 AM, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But, if they do,
>
> then AMD processors are susceptible in the same way, and the issue can
> not be fixed. There are some news pieces and commenters claiming that
> AMD processors suffer similar issues.
AMD published this:
https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/speculative-execution
This tends to go along with Google's statement that AMD is vulnerable
to variant 1, but not 2 or 3.
There is plenty of speculation going on with the hazy info that was
provided, but none of the original sources suggest that AMD is
vulnerable to variant 3. For variants 1/2 Google says that AMD is
susceptible to only 1, and the white paper says that they're
vulnerable to either 1/2 but they don't say which specifically.
In any case, short of somebody publishing actual exploit code so that
people can run their own tests, I'm going to go with AMD. Nobody
reputable is outright contradicting their statements. For variant 1
the only known vulnerability is BPF which probably next to nobody
uses, and for variant 2 there really aren't any alternatives available
right now anyway.
--
Rich