|
| 1 | +This document explains potential effects of speculation, and how undesirable |
| 2 | +effects can be mitigated portably using common APIs. |
| 3 | + |
| 4 | +=========== |
| 5 | +Speculation |
| 6 | +=========== |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +To improve performance and minimize average latencies, many contemporary CPUs |
| 9 | +employ speculative execution techniques such as branch prediction, performing |
| 10 | +work which may be discarded at a later stage. |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +Typically speculative execution cannot be observed from architectural state, |
| 13 | +such as the contents of registers. However, in some cases it is possible to |
| 14 | +observe its impact on microarchitectural state, such as the presence or |
| 15 | +absence of data in caches. Such state may form side-channels which can be |
| 16 | +observed to extract secret information. |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +For example, in the presence of branch prediction, it is possible for bounds |
| 19 | +checks to be ignored by code which is speculatively executed. Consider the |
| 20 | +following code: |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) |
| 23 | + { |
| 24 | + if (index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS) |
| 25 | + return 0; |
| 26 | + else |
| 27 | + return array[index]; |
| 28 | + } |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +Which, on arm64, may be compiled to an assembly sequence such as: |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | + CMP <index>, #MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS |
| 33 | + B.LT less |
| 34 | + MOV <returnval>, #0 |
| 35 | + RET |
| 36 | + less: |
| 37 | + LDR <returnval>, [<array>, <index>] |
| 38 | + RET |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +It is possible that a CPU mis-predicts the conditional branch, and |
| 41 | +speculatively loads array[index], even if index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS. This |
| 42 | +value will subsequently be discarded, but the speculated load may affect |
| 43 | +microarchitectural state which can be subsequently measured. |
| 44 | + |
| 45 | +More complex sequences involving multiple dependent memory accesses may |
| 46 | +result in sensitive information being leaked. Consider the following |
| 47 | +code, building on the prior example: |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | + int load_dependent_arrays(int *arr1, int *arr2, int index) |
| 50 | + { |
| 51 | + int val1, val2, |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | + val1 = load_array(arr1, index); |
| 54 | + val2 = load_array(arr2, val1); |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | + return val2; |
| 57 | + } |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +Under speculation, the first call to load_array() may return the value |
| 60 | +of an out-of-bounds address, while the second call will influence |
| 61 | +microarchitectural state dependent on this value. This may provide an |
| 62 | +arbitrary read primitive. |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +==================================== |
| 65 | +Mitigating speculation side-channels |
| 66 | +==================================== |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +The kernel provides a generic API to ensure that bounds checks are |
| 69 | +respected even under speculation. Architectures which are affected by |
| 70 | +speculation-based side-channels are expected to implement these |
| 71 | +primitives. |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +The array_index_nospec() helper in <linux/nospec.h> can be used to |
| 74 | +prevent information from being leaked via side-channels. |
| 75 | + |
| 76 | +A call to array_index_nospec(index, size) returns a sanitized index |
| 77 | +value that is bounded to [0, size) even under cpu speculation |
| 78 | +conditions. |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | +This can be used to protect the earlier load_array() example: |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | + int load_array(int *array, unsigned int index) |
| 83 | + { |
| 84 | + if (index >= MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS) |
| 85 | + return 0; |
| 86 | + else { |
| 87 | + index = array_index_nospec(index, MAX_ARRAY_ELEMS); |
| 88 | + return array[index]; |
| 89 | + } |
| 90 | + } |
0 commit comments