Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Meltdown/Spectre: Unauthorized Disclosure of Kernel Memory
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 19, 20, 21  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ian.au
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 406
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, but that was before the gcc switch, back in early Dec I think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5201
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Intel Warns Its Patches for Chip Flaws Are Buggy
paywall wrote:
One Intel partner familiar with the document said it is problematic the company is only notifying select customers they should hold off on the patches. The public has “been given the microcode update but has not been given the important technical information that Intel recommends that you don’t use this,” the partner said.


So Yer.. back to my previous statement about Intel iCode...
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VinzC
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 4883
Location: Dark side of the mood

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi guys, sorry for hijacking this thread — I haven't delved into it thoroughly but I am wondering if my CPUs will receive fixes. In my laptop is an Ivy Bridge (Intel Core i3-3000), serial number=000306A9 and I can't find it in the Gentoo Meltdown & Spectre info pages. From what I've read in this thread (or was it elsewhere?) Intel would only "fix" (i.e. release updated microcode for) CPUs made during the last 5 years or so, is that correct?
_________________
Dealing with computers is searching for troubles, which refraining from touching them in the first place would have spared you from!
Gentoo addict: tomorrow I quit, I promise!... Just one more emerge...


Last edited by VinzC on Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 6276

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The info i'm sure about intel release of microcode so far:
- intel said they will release update fix fast (and they did for some) for most cpu made < 5 years
- since the documentation was written, intel has release more microcode (which may include your cpu, you should check latest microcode update)
- intel has also confirm a bug with "haswell" (i don't remember other cpu, but i own an haswell, might be why i remember this one) microcode (the 0x23 early release with fix for the spectre#2) is buggy and face reboot using it.
- intel didn't say anything about cpu past +5 years (which also mean, they didn't say they won't, but they suggest priority on <5years, which "should" imply also fix for +5 years)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 5201
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:
The info i'm sure about intel release of microcode so far:
- intel said they will release update fix fast (and they did for some) for most cpu made < 5 years
- since the documentation was written, intel has release more microcode (which may include your cpu, you should check latest microcode update)
- intel has also confirm a bug with "haswell" (i don't remember other cpu, but i own an haswell, might be why i remember this one) microcode (the 0x23 early release with fix for the spectre#2) is buggy and face reboot using it.
- intel didn't say anything about cpu past +5 years (which also mean, they didn't say they won't, but they suggest priority on <5years, which "should" imply also fix for +5 years)

you missed: Intel kept it from the public that the updated ucode should not be used (but informed their strategic partners)
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mike155
Guru
Guru


Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 328
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:
- intel said they will release update fix fast (and they did for some) for most cpu made < 5 years

That's NOT what they said. They said 'introduced', not 'made'. This difference is important for Ivy Bridge CPUs. Many of those CPUs were manufactured or sold within the last 5 years. But unfortunately, they were introduced Q2'12.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VinzC
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 4883
Location: Dark side of the mood

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks krinn et al. That doesn't sound too reassuring though. I keep the panic button nearby, just in case :lol: :roll: :(
_________________
Dealing with computers is searching for troubles, which refraining from touching them in the first place would have spared you from!
Gentoo addict: tomorrow I quit, I promise!... Just one more emerge...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 6276

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
you missed: Intel kept it from the public that the updated ucode should not be used (but informed their strategic partners)

I haven't said too that my haswell is not suffering from the reboot bug, while using 0x23.
Affected "partners" may use something i still doesn't have (like a fucking kernel with proper fix or something) that trigger the reboot bug.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 5897

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:
I haven't said too that my haswell is not suffering from the reboot bug, while using 0x23

I haven't experienced any problems with it, either, so far.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 6276

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mv wrote:
krinn wrote:
I haven't said too that my haswell is not suffering from the reboot bug, while using 0x23

I haven't experienced any problems with it, either, so far.

Just adding it for clarity -> https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-security-issue-update-addressing-reboot-issues/
Looks like i forget broadwell with haswell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mno
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 304
Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More broad article on the microcode side of things:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/spectre-and-meltdown-patches-causing-trouble-as-realistic-attacks-get-closer/
_________________
"Hello and goodbye. As always." | You can't use &nbsp; here?? | Unanswered
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kavra
n00b
n00b


Joined: 22 Feb 2012
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mv wrote:
krinn wrote:
I haven't said too that my haswell is not suffering from the reboot bug, while using 0x23

I haven't experienced any problems with it, either, so far.


I haven't experienced any problems with it, either,...important: so far...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrSo
n00b
n00b


Joined: 01 Jun 2017
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems that PTI is going to be backported to x86-32, but still WIP:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/16/668
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 6276

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mno wrote:
More broad article on the microcode side of things:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/spectre-and-meltdown-patches-causing-trouble-as-realistic-attacks-get-closer/

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/spectre-and-meltdown-patches-causing-trouble-as-realistic-attacks-get-closer wrote:
and Intel is currently recommending that people cease installing a microcode update it issued to help tackle the Spectre problem.


That's not what i have saw, nor anything sane to do!
From the intel article which indeed report the problem you can read
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-security-issue-update-addressing-reboot-issues/ wrote:
End-users should continue to apply updates recommended by their system and operating system providers.

So despite you might end up with the reboot bug, it's something you should still apply.
In the meantime (like some has said, including me), if only the reboot bug is affecting some "partners", it could mean the microcode update in itself isn't bad ; maybe something those partners has done is the problem when interacting with the new microcode (someone has report Redhat is known to use real early patches in their kernels).

Anyway enough guessing: Do apply microcode update, and at least see if you have the reboot bug.
And if you have the reboot bug, well, no idea because you are facing impossible choice for a user: "running insecure server stable" <> "running secure but rebooting server".
The only logical and safe choice for big companies is this one: use microcode updates on a cpu not from the affected category -> no server with haswell and broadwell, but another cpu which do have microcode update.
Alas that's a choice those companies have, a choice few users will have.

But the hint on that article is so wrong because it assume everybody will reboot and pickup the : "don't apply the microcode update and run insecure and stable" without balancing against "maybe you won't get reboot bug, and could then run a secure stable server".
And it is also wrong because the article is claiming Intel has said that, which is false from what i have read myself, or could be true, but the article just lack to provide a link to this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Elleni
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 506

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrSo wrote:
pjp wrote:
PrSo wrote:
pjp wrote:

That sounds to me like CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION should be enabled for AMD processors. Or at least not setting it with the knowledge of leaving the vulnerability exposed.

So it seems that even if you compile kernel with CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION=Y PTI is auto-disabled on AMD cpu anyway.
But the underlying issue is still whether or not AMD should have it enabled. From the prior information, the answer appears to be yes.

To enable the functionality, I had to enable the kernel option AND enable it on the kernel command line with "pti=on". After that (and only after that):
Code:
 dmesg |grep -i isol
[    0.000000] Kernel/User page tables isolation: force enabled on command line.
[    0.000000] Kernel/User page tables isolation: enabled
(I got the idea from Naib's post on page 5 of this thread which referenced "pti=off". Thanks Naib!)



I think that you are playing here the advocatus diaboli role.

With the knowledge that the test case provided on wiki page was performed in 2013, and should be mitigated by KAISER (now PTI) I personally think that AMD statement to which you got link in mike155 post is still in power, of course with the assumption that AMD is aware of that vulnerability.

Thomas Lendacky wrote:
AMD processors are not subject to the types of attacks that the kernel page table isolation feature protects against.


I know that this could be some kind of uncomfortable situation but there is nothing more we can do for now than to trust AMD with that. Maybe someone will write PoC on that case in the near future proofing that AMD was duly diligent.

If you think different on that subject please feel free to contact AMD an ask them to resolve your possible concerns.


Mhm, now what is officially recommended on amd ryzen boxes ? Ehable CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION=Y PTI and as its autodisabled by default enable it on the kernel command line with "pti=on" ? Or is this not required ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spargeltarzan
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 23 Jul 2017
Posts: 194

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does somebody read about a release date for Gcc 7.3 with retpoline? (Phoronix Link )

They write reptoline is merged already into it and it will be released in "a few weeks" where gcc 8 is released in March/April
_________________
___________________
Regards

Spargeltarzan

Notebook: Lenovo YOGA 900-13ISK: Gentoo stable amd64, GNOME systemd, KVM/QEMU
Desktop-PC: Intel Core i7-4770K, 8GB Ram, AMD Radeon R9 280X, ZFS Storage, GNOME openrc, Dantrell, Xen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mike155
Guru
Guru


Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 328
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spargeltarzan wrote:
Does somebody read about a release date for Gcc 7.3 with retpoline? (Phoronix Link)

They write reptoline is merged already into it and it will be released in "a few weeks"

You'll get more accurate information if you read GCC mailing lists: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg01303.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wallsandfences
Guru
Guru


Joined: 29 Mar 2010
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must confirm that loading amd microcode and having retpoline enabled in 4.14.14-gentoo does not prevent spectre-attack-master being succesful. Is this to be expected?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 39934
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wallsandfences,

retpolines are in two phases.
1) in the kernel assembly code. They are fixed in 4.14.
2) In the kernel C code. That needs a retpoline aware compiler. Watch out for a version bump to gcc. 6.x or 7.y, since it has to come from upstream.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mike155
Guru
Guru


Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 328
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A release candidate for GCC 7.3 is available: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-01/msg00115.html.

The final release of GCC 7.3 is scheduled for Wednesday, January 24th.

EDIT: The link to snapshot given in the mail above doesn't seem to work. The correct link seems to be: https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.3.0-RC-20180117/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mike155
Guru
Guru


Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 328
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I installed gcc-7.3.0-RC-20180117, compiled Linux kernel 4.14 and rebooted.

Code:
# dmesg -t | grep gcc
Linux version 4.14.14 (root@xxx) (gcc version 7.2.1 20180117 (GCC)) #2 SMP Thu Jan 18 19:07:37 CET 2018

# dmesg -t | egrep "(isolation|Spectre)"
Kernel/User page tables isolation: enabled
Spectre V2 mitigation: Mitigation: Full generic retpoline

# cd /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities
# for file in *; do echo "$file : $(tail -n1 $file)"; done
meltdown : Mitigation: PTI
spectre_v1 : Vulnerable
spectre_v2 : Mitigation: Full generic retpoline

Mitigation: Full generic retpoline - that's what I wanted to see! :-) Much better than my last result.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thistled
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jan 2011
Posts: 548
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VinzC wrote:
Hi guys, sorry for hijacking this thread — I haven't delved into it thoroughly but I am wondering if my CPUs will receive fixes. In my laptop is an Ivy Bridge (Intel Core i3-3000), serial number=000306A9 and I can't find it in the Gentoo Meltdown & Spectre info pages. From what I've read in this thread (or was it elsewhere?) Intel would only "fix" (i.e. release updated microcode for) CPUs made during the last 5 years or so, is that correct?

VinzC, looks like you might have missed the announcement from Intel's CEO. :?:
https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/security-first-pledge/
Quote:
By Jan. 15, we will have issued updates for at least 90 percent of Intel CPUs introduced in the past five years, with updates for the remainder of these CPUs available by the end of January. We will then focus on issuing updates for older products as prioritized by our customers.

Just need to keep your fingers crossed, because "prioritised by our customers" may not slice the cake for us older CPU freaks. :D

(Dual-Core E5400 here - which works great)
_________________
Whatever you do, do it properly!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hossie
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone know about upstream fixes for Spectre V1? And what will be required for that? A GCC Update and a kernel recompile?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ska`
n00b
n00b


Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hossie wrote:
Does anyone know about upstream fixes for Spectre V1? And what will be required for that? A GCC Update and a kernel recompile?


I think a kernel recompile will be enough, I just upgraded to 4.14.14 and the tool says:

Code:
STATUS:  VULNERABLE  (only 51 opcodes found, should be >= 70, heuristic to be improved when official patches become available)


Previous 4.14.13 had a much lower opcodes number.

For v2 you need CONFIG_RETPOLINE (available from 4.14.14) and a new GCC (not available yet), then a simple emerge -e world with your new&slower CPU :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 6520
Location: almost Mile High in the USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ska` wrote:
For v2 you need CONFIG_RETPOLINE (available from 4.14.14) and a new GCC (not available yet), then a simple emerge -e world with your new&slower CPU :D

I was thinking I should keep two versions of the kernel, one secured, one insecure - and use the insecure one to emerge -e world when the machine is airgapped :D
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed watching?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 19, 20, 21  Next
Page 16 of 21

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum