llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/speculative-load-hardening-...

862 lines
28 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

; NOTE: Assertions have been autogenerated by utils/update_llc_test_checks.py
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -x86-speculative-load-hardening -data-sections | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=X64
; FIXME: Fix machine verifier issues and remove -verify-machineinstrs=0. PR39451.
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -x86-speculative-load-hardening -relocation-model pic -data-sections -verify-machineinstrs=0 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=X64-PIC
; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -x86-speculative-load-hardening -data-sections -mattr=+retpoline | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=X64-RETPOLINE
;
; FIXME: Add support for 32-bit.
@global_fnptr = external global i32 ()*
@global_blockaddrs = constant [4 x i8*] [
i8* blockaddress(@test_indirectbr_global, %bb0),
i8* blockaddress(@test_indirectbr_global, %bb1),
i8* blockaddress(@test_indirectbr_global, %bb2),
i8* blockaddress(@test_indirectbr_global, %bb3)
]
define i32 @test_indirect_call(i32 ()** %ptr) nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_indirect_call:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: pushq %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %rcx
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: callq *%rcx
; X64-NEXT: .Lslh_ret_addr0:
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movq -{{[0-9]+}}(%rsp), %rdx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.Lslh_ret_addr0, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rbx, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: popq %rbx
; X64-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_indirect_call:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: pushq %rbx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %rbx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: callq *%rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .Lslh_ret_addr0:
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq -{{[0-9]+}}(%rsp), %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rbx, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: popq %rbx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
;
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_indirect_call:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: pushq %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq $-1, %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %r11
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rax, %r11
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: callq __llvm_retpoline_r11
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .Lslh_ret_addr0:
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq -{{[0-9]+}}(%rsp), %rdx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpq $.Lslh_ret_addr0, %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rbx, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: popq %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
entry:
%fp = load i32 ()*, i32 ()** %ptr
%v = call i32 %fp()
ret i32 %v
}
define i32 @test_indirect_tail_call(i32 ()** %ptr) nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_indirect_tail_call:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %rcx
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: jmpq *%rcx # TAILCALL
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_indirect_tail_call:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: jmpq *%rcx # TAILCALL
;
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_indirect_tail_call:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq $-1, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %r11
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rax, %r11
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jmp __llvm_retpoline_r11 # TAILCALL
entry:
%fp = load i32 ()*, i32 ()** %ptr
%v = tail call i32 %fp()
ret i32 %v
}
define i32 @test_indirect_call_global() nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_indirect_call_global:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: pushq %rbx
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %rbx
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-NEXT: movq {{.*}}(%rip), %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: callq *%rcx
; X64-NEXT: .Lslh_ret_addr1:
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movq -{{[0-9]+}}(%rsp), %rdx
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.Lslh_ret_addr1, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rbx, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: popq %rbx
; X64-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_indirect_call_global:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: pushq %rbx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %rbx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq global_fnptr@{{.*}}(%rip), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq (%rcx), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: callq *%rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .Lslh_ret_addr1:
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq -{{[0-9]+}}(%rsp), %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rbx, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: popq %rbx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
;
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_indirect_call_global:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: pushq %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq $-1, %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq {{.*}}(%rip), %r11
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: callq __llvm_retpoline_r11
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .Lslh_ret_addr1:
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq -{{[0-9]+}}(%rsp), %rdx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpq $.Lslh_ret_addr1, %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rbx, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: popq %rbx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
entry:
%fp = load i32 ()*, i32 ()** @global_fnptr
%v = call i32 %fp()
ret i32 %v
}
define i32 @test_indirect_tail_call_global() nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_indirect_tail_call_global:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-NEXT: movq {{.*}}(%rip), %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-NEXT: jmpq *%rcx # TAILCALL
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_indirect_tail_call_global:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq global_fnptr@{{.*}}(%rip), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq (%rcx), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: jmpq *%rcx # TAILCALL
;
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_indirect_tail_call_global:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq $-1, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq {{.*}}(%rip), %r11
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rax, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jmp __llvm_retpoline_r11 # TAILCALL
entry:
%fp = load i32 ()*, i32 ()** @global_fnptr
%v = tail call i32 %fp()
ret i32 %v
}
define i32 @test_indirectbr(i8** %ptr) nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_indirectbr:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %rdx
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: jmpq *%rdx
; X64-NEXT: .LBB4_1: # %bb0
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB4_1, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .LBB4_3: # %bb2
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB4_3, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .LBB4_4: # %bb3
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB4_4, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .LBB4_2: # %bb1
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB4_2, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_indirectbr:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq (%rdi), %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: jmpq *%rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB4_1: # %bb0
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB4_3: # %bb2
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB4_4: # %bb3
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB4_2: # %bb1
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
;
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_indirectbr:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
entry:
%a = load i8*, i8** %ptr
indirectbr i8* %a, [ label %bb0, label %bb1, label %bb2, label %bb3 ]
bb0:
ret i32 2
bb1:
ret i32 7
bb2:
ret i32 13
bb3:
ret i32 42
}
define i32 @test_indirectbr_global(i32 %idx) nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_indirectbr_global:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movslq %edi, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: movq global_blockaddrs(,%rdx,8), %rdx
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: jmpq *%rdx
; X64-NEXT: .Ltmp0: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: .LBB5_1: # %bb0
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB5_1, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .Ltmp1: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: .LBB5_3: # %bb2
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB5_3, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .Ltmp2: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: .LBB5_4: # %bb3
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB5_4, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .Ltmp3: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: .LBB5_2: # %bb1
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB5_2, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_indirectbr_global:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movslq %edi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq global_blockaddrs@{{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq (%rsi,%rdx,8), %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: jmpq *%rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .Ltmp0: # Block address taken
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB5_1: # %bb0
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .Ltmp1: # Block address taken
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB5_3: # %bb2
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .Ltmp2: # Block address taken
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB5_4: # %bb3
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .Ltmp3: # Block address taken
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB5_2: # %bb1
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
;
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_indirectbr_global:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movslq %edi, %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq global_blockaddrs(,%rdx,8), %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpq $2, %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: je .LBB6_4
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.1: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpq $3, %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: je .LBB6_5
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.2: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpq $4, %rdx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jne .LBB6_3
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .Ltmp0: # Block address taken
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.6: # %bb3
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .Ltmp1: # Block address taken
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB6_4: # %bb1
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .Ltmp2: # Block address taken
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB6_5: # %bb2
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .Ltmp3: # Block address taken
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB6_3: # %bb0
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
entry:
%ptr = getelementptr [4 x i8*], [4 x i8*]* @global_blockaddrs, i32 0, i32 %idx
%a = load i8*, i8** %ptr
indirectbr i8* %a, [ label %bb0, label %bb1, label %bb2, label %bb3 ]
bb0:
ret i32 2
bb1:
ret i32 7
bb2:
ret i32 13
bb3:
ret i32 42
}
; This function's switch is crafted to trigger jump-table lowering in the x86
; backend so that we can test how the exact jump table lowering behaves.
define i32 @test_switch_jumptable(i32 %idx) nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_switch_jumptable:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $3, %edi
; X64-NEXT: ja .LBB6_2
; X64-NEXT: # %bb.1: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: cmovaq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl %edi, %edx
; X64-NEXT: movq .LJTI6_0(,%rdx,8), %rdx
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: jmpq *%rdx
; X64-NEXT: .LBB6_3: # %bb1
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB6_3, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .LBB6_2: # %bb0
; X64-NEXT: cmovbeq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .LBB6_4: # %bb2
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB6_4, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .LBB6_5: # %bb3
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB6_5, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-NEXT: .LBB6_6: # %bb5
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB6_6, %rdx
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-NEXT: movl $11, %eax
; X64-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_switch_jumptable:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpl $3, %edi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: ja .LBB6_2
; X64-PIC-NEXT: # %bb.1: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovaq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl %edi, %edx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movslq (%rsi,%rdx,4), %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: addq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: jmpq *%rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB6_3: # %bb1
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB6_2: # %bb0
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovbeq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB6_4: # %bb2
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB6_5: # %bb3
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB6_6: # %bb5
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rsi, %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl $11, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
;
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_switch_jumptable:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq $-1, %rax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $1, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jg .LBB7_4
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.1: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovgq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: testl %edi, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: je .LBB7_7
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.2: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $1, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jne .LBB7_6
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.3: # %bb2
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $13, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB7_4: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovleq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $2, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: je .LBB7_8
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.5: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $3, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jne .LBB7_6
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.9: # %bb5
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $11, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB7_6:
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $2, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB7_7: # %bb1
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $7, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB7_8: # %bb3
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %rax, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %rcx
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl $42, %eax
[x86/SLH] Teach the x86 speculative load hardening pass to harden against v1.2 BCBS attacks directly. Attacks using spectre v1.2 (a subset of BCBS) are described in the paper here: https://people.csail.mit.edu/vlk/spectre11.pdf The core idea is to speculatively store over the address in a vtable, jumptable, or other target of indirect control flow that will be subsequently loaded. Speculative execution after such a store can forward the stored value to subsequent loads, and if called or jumped to, the speculative execution will be steered to this potentially attacker controlled address. Up until now, this could be mitigated by enableing retpolines. However, that is a relatively expensive technique to mitigate this particular flavor. Especially because in most cases SLH will have already mitigated this. To fully mitigate this with SLH, we need to do two core things: 1) Unfold loads from calls and jumps, allowing the loads to be post-load hardened. 2) Force hardening of incoming registers even if we didn't end up needing to harden the load itself. The reason we need to do these two things is because hardening calls and jumps from this particular variant is importantly different from hardening against leak of secret data. Because the "bad" data here isn't a secret, but in fact speculatively stored by the attacker, it may be loaded from any address, regardless of whether it is read-only memory, mapped memory, or a "hardened" address. The only 100% effective way to harden these instructions is to harden the their operand itself. But to the extent possible, we'd like to take advantage of all the other hardening going on, we just need a fallback in case none of that happened to cover the particular input to the control transfer instruction. For users of SLH, currently they are paing 2% to 6% performance overhead for retpolines, but this mechanism is expected to be substantially cheaper. However, it is worth reminding folks that this does not mitigate all of the things retpolines do -- most notably, variant #2 is not in *any way* mitigated by this technique. So users of SLH may still want to enable retpolines, and the implementation is carefuly designed to gracefully leverage retpolines to avoid the need for further hardening here when they are enabled. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D49663 llvm-svn: 337878
2018-07-25 09:51:29 +08:00
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %rcx, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
entry:
switch i32 %idx, label %bb0 [
i32 0, label %bb1
i32 1, label %bb2
i32 2, label %bb3
i32 3, label %bb5
]
bb0:
ret i32 2
bb1:
ret i32 7
bb2:
ret i32 13
bb3:
ret i32 42
bb5:
ret i32 11
}
; This function's switch is crafted to trigger jump-table lowering in the x86
; backend so that we can test how the exact jump table lowering behaves, but
; also arranges for fallthroughs from case to case to ensure that this pattern
; too can be handled.
define i32 @test_switch_jumptable_fallthrough(i32 %idx, i32* %a.ptr, i32* %b.ptr, i32* %c.ptr, i32* %d.ptr) nounwind {
; X64-LABEL: test_switch_jumptable_fallthrough:
; X64: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: movq %rsp, %r9
; X64-NEXT: movq $-1, %r10
; X64-NEXT: sarq $63, %r9
; X64-NEXT: cmpl $3, %edi
; X64-NEXT: ja .LBB7_2
; X64-NEXT: # %bb.1: # %entry
; X64-NEXT: cmovaq %r10, %r9
; X64-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-NEXT: movl %edi, %esi
; X64-NEXT: movq .LJTI7_0(,%rsi,8), %rsi
; X64-NEXT: orq %r9, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: jmpq *%rsi
; X64-NEXT: .LBB7_2: # %bb0
; X64-NEXT: cmovbeq %r10, %r9
; X64-NEXT: movl (%rsi), %eax
; X64-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-NEXT: movq $.LBB7_3, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: .LBB7_3: # %bb1
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB7_3, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-NEXT: addl (%rdx), %eax
; X64-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-NEXT: movq $.LBB7_4, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: .LBB7_4: # %bb2
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB7_4, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-NEXT: addl (%rcx), %eax
; X64-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-NEXT: movq $.LBB7_5, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: .LBB7_5: # %bb3
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB7_5, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-NEXT: addl (%r8), %eax
; X64-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-NEXT: movq $.LBB7_6, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: .LBB7_6: # %bb4
; X64-NEXT: cmpq $.LBB7_6, %rsi
; X64-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-NEXT: shlq $47, %r9
; X64-NEXT: orq %r9, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: retq
;
; X64-PIC-LABEL: test_switch_jumptable_fallthrough:
; X64-PIC: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq %rsp, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movq $-1, %r10
; X64-PIC-NEXT: sarq $63, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpl $3, %edi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: ja .LBB7_2
; X64-PIC-NEXT: # %bb.1: # %entry
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovaq %r10, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl %edi, %esi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rdi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movslq (%rdi,%rsi,4), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: addq %rdi, %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %r9, %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: jmpq *%rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB7_2: # %bb0
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovbeq %r10, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: movl (%rsi), %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB7_3: # %bb1
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rdi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rdi, %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: addl (%rdx), %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB7_4: # %bb2
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rdx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rdx, %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: addl (%rcx), %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB7_5: # %bb3
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rcx, %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: addl (%r8), %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: .LBB7_6: # %bb4
; X64-PIC-NEXT: leaq {{.*}}(%rip), %rcx
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmpq %rcx, %rsi
; X64-PIC-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: shlq $47, %r9
; X64-PIC-NEXT: orq %r9, %rsp
; X64-PIC-NEXT: retq
;
; X64-RETPOLINE-LABEL: test_switch_jumptable_fallthrough:
; X64-RETPOLINE: # %bb.0: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq %rsp, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movq $-1, %r10
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: sarq $63, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: xorl %eax, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $1, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jg .LBB8_5
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.1: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovgq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: testl %edi, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: je .LBB8_2
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.3: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $1, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jne .LBB8_8
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.4:
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jmp .LBB8_10
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_5: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovleq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $2, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: je .LBB8_6
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.7: # %entry
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmpl $3, %edi
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jne .LBB8_8
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: # %bb.13:
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jmp .LBB8_12
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_8:
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmoveq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: movl (%rsi), %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jmp .LBB8_9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_2:
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_9: # %bb1
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: addl (%rdx), %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_10: # %bb2
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: addl (%rcx), %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: jmp .LBB8_11
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_6:
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: cmovneq %r10, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_11: # %bb3
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: addl (%r8), %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orl %r9d, %eax
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: .LBB8_12: # %bb4
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: shlq $47, %r9
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: orq %r9, %rsp
; X64-RETPOLINE-NEXT: retq
entry:
switch i32 %idx, label %bb0 [
i32 0, label %bb1
i32 1, label %bb2
i32 2, label %bb3
i32 3, label %bb4
]
bb0:
%a = load i32, i32* %a.ptr
br label %bb1
bb1:
%b.phi = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %a, %bb0 ]
%b = load i32, i32* %b.ptr
%b.sum = add i32 %b.phi, %b
br label %bb2
bb2:
%c.phi = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %b.sum, %bb1 ]
%c = load i32, i32* %c.ptr
%c.sum = add i32 %c.phi, %c
br label %bb3
bb3:
%d.phi = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %c.sum, %bb2 ]
%d = load i32, i32* %d.ptr
%d.sum = add i32 %d.phi, %d
br label %bb4
bb4:
%e.phi = phi i32 [ 0, %entry ], [ %d.sum, %bb3 ]
ret i32 %e.phi
}