Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!
Message
Author
User avatar
Lysander
Posts: 643
Joined: 2017-02-23 10:07
Location: London
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#31 Post by Lysander »

Saw this come through earlier today. Very pleased.

Code: Select all

lysander@psychopig-xxxiii:~$ grep -r . /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spectre_v2:Mitigation: Full generic retpoline
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spectre_v1:Mitigation: __user pointer sanitization
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/meltdown:Mitigation: PTI
lysander@psychopig-xxxiii:~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -m1 "model name"
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q8400  @ 2.66GHz
lysander@psychopig-xxxiii:~$ uname -a
Linux psychopig-xxxiii 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.82-1+deb9u2 (2018-02-21) x86_64 GNU/Linux
lysander@psychopig-xxxiii:~$ 

I'm covered by default on my other machine since it runs a diamondville Atom.
bw123 wrote:I know it's crazy, but I sort of feel let down by this whole thing. I know there has been a lot of work done though, and I appreciate that.
Why do you feel let down? A lot of the Atoms [maybe all, I haven't looked] are invulnerable.

anticapitalista
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-12-14 23:16
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#32 Post by anticapitalista »

Here's mine.

Code: Select all

grep -r . /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spectre_v2:Mitigation: Full generic retpoline
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spectre_v1:Mitigation: __user pointer sanitization
/sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/meltdown:Mitigation: PTI

uname -a
Linux antix1 4.15.5-antix.2-amd64-smp #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Feb 23 01:05:42 EET 2018 x86_64 GNU/Linux

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -m1 "model name"
model name	: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 CPU       M 520  @ 2.40GHz
antiX with runit - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

User avatar
None1975
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2015-11-29 18:23
Location: Russia, Kaliningrad
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#33 Post by None1975 »

stevepusser wrote:What kernel is that?
Hello. It is standart Debian 9.3 kernel

Code: Select all

Linux debian 4.9.0-6-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.82-1+deb9u2 (2018-02-21) x86_64 GNU/Linux
OS: Debian 12.4 Bookworm / DE: Enlightenment
Debian Wiki | DontBreakDebian, My config files on github

User avatar
stevepusser
Posts: 12930
Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#34 Post by stevepusser »

Thanks, they must have backported the user pointer sanitation to 4.9. The 4.14.17 that briefly appeared upstream doesn't have it.
MX Linux packager and developer

User avatar
Rildebai
Posts: 87
Joined: 2016-04-30 09:27
Location: Ireland

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#35 Post by Rildebai »

Run these to check if you are prone to meltdown & spectre.

Code: Select all

sudo apt install spectre-meltdown-checker

Code: Select all

sudo spectre-meltdown-checker
Write programs that do one thing and do it well. ~ Doug Mcllroy on the UNIX Philosophy

User avatar
stevepusser
Posts: 12930
Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#36 Post by stevepusser »

Stretch users will have to get spectre-meltdown-checker from stretch-backports.
MX Linux packager and developer

User avatar
Rildebai
Posts: 87
Joined: 2016-04-30 09:27
Location: Ireland

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#37 Post by Rildebai »

stevepusser wrote:Stretch users will have to get spectre-meltdown-checker from stretch-backports.
Yes.
Write programs that do one thing and do it well. ~ Doug Mcllroy on the UNIX Philosophy

User avatar
stevepusser
Posts: 12930
Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Official Debian standpoint on Meltdown/Spectre

#38 Post by stevepusser »

Code: Select all

Checking for vulnerabilities on current system
Kernel is Linux 4.15.0-5.1-liquorix-amd64 #1 ZEN SMP PREEMPT liquorix 4.15-1~mx17+1 (2018-02-25) x86_64
CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6200U CPU @ 2.30GHz

Hardware check
* Hardware support (CPU microcode) for mitigation techniques
  * Indirect Branch Restricted Speculation (IBRS)
    * SPEC_CTRL MSR is available:  NO 
    * CPU indicates IBRS capability:  NO 
  * Indirect Branch Prediction Barrier (IBPB)
    * PRED_CMD MSR is available:  NO 
    * CPU indicates IBPB capability:  NO 
  * Single Thread Indirect Branch Predictors (STIBP)
    * SPEC_CTRL MSR is available:  NO 
    * CPU indicates STIBP capability:  NO 
  * Enhanced IBRS (IBRS_ALL)
    * CPU indicates ARCH_CAPABILITIES MSR availability:  NO 
    * ARCH_CAPABILITIES MSR advertises IBRS_ALL capability:  NO 
  * CPU explicitly indicates not being vulnerable to Meltdown (RDCL_NO):  NO 
  * CPU microcode is known to cause stability problems:  NO  (model 78 stepping 3 ucode 0xba)
* CPU vulnerability to the three speculative execution attacks variants
  * Vulnerable to Variant 1:  YES 
  * Vulnerable to Variant 2:  YES 
  * Vulnerable to Variant 3:  YES 

CVE-2017-5753 [bounds check bypass] aka 'Spectre Variant 1'
* Mitigated according to the /sys interface:  YES  (kernel confirms that the mitigation is active)
* Kernel has array_index_mask_nospec:  YES  (1 occurence(s) found of 64 bits array_index_mask_nospec())
> STATUS:  NOT VULNERABLE  (Mitigation: __user pointer sanitization)

CVE-2017-5715 [branch target injection] aka 'Spectre Variant 2'
* Mitigated according to the /sys interface:  YES  (kernel confirms that the mitigation is active)
* Mitigation 1
  * Kernel is compiled with IBRS/IBPB support:  NO 
  * Currently enabled features
    * IBRS enabled for Kernel space:  NO 
    * IBRS enabled for User space:  NO 
    * IBPB enabled:  NO 
* Mitigation 2
  * Kernel compiled with retpoline option:  YES 
  * Kernel compiled with a retpoline-aware compiler:  YES  (kernel reports full retpoline compilation)
  * Retpoline enabled:  NO 
> STATUS:  NOT VULNERABLE  (Mitigation: Full generic retpoline)
Intel has just released some newer firmware for most of their affected processors, so maybe these aren't utter crap like the previous release that they had to pull back.
MX Linux packager and developer

Post Reply