The previous commit added macro calls in the entry code which mitigate the
Spectre v1 swapgs issue if the X86_FEATURE_FENCE_SWAPGS_* features are
enabled.  Enable those features where applicable.

The mitigations may be disabled with "nospectre_v1" or "mitigations=off".

There are different features which can affect the risk of attack:

- When FSGSBASE is enabled, unprivileged users are able to place any
  value in GS, using the wrgsbase instruction.  This means they can
  write a GS value which points to any value in kernel space, which can
  be useful with the following gadget in an interrupt/exception/NMI
  handler:

	if (coming from user space)
		swapgs
	mov %gs:<percpu_offset>, %reg1
	// dependent load or store based on the value of %reg
	// for example: mov %(reg1), %reg2

  If an interrupt is coming from user space, and the entry code
  speculatively skips the swapgs (due to user branch mistraining), it
  may speculatively execute the GS-based load and a subsequent dependent
  load or store, exposing the kernel data to an L1 side channel leak.

  Note that, on Intel, a similar attack exists in the above gadget when
  coming from kernel space, if the swapgs gets speculatively executed to
  switch back to the user GS.  On AMD, this variant isn't possible
  because swapgs is serializing with respect to future GS-based
  accesses.

  NOTE: The FSGSBASE patch set hasn't been merged yet, so the above case
	doesn't exist quite yet.

- When FSGSBASE is disabled, the issue is mitigated somewhat because
  unprivileged users must use prctl(ARCH_SET_GS) to set GS, which
  restricts GS values to user space addresses only.  That means the
  gadget would need an additional step, since the target kernel address
  needs to be read from user space first.  Something like:

	if (coming from user space)
		swapgs
	mov %gs:<percpu_offset>, %reg1
	mov (%reg1), %reg2
	// dependent load or store based on the value of %reg2
	// for example: mov %(reg2), %reg3

  It's difficult to audit for this gadget in all the handlers, so while
  there are no known instances of it, it's entirely possible that it
  exists somewhere (or could be introduced in the future).  Without
  tooling to analyze all such code paths, consider it vulnerable.

  Effects of SMAP on the !FSGSBASE case:

  - If SMAP is enabled, and the CPU reports RDCL_NO (i.e., not
    susceptible to Meltdown), the kernel is prevented from speculatively
    reading user space memory, even L1 cached values.  This effectively
    disables the !FSGSBASE attack vector.

  - If SMAP is enabled, but the CPU *is* susceptible to Meltdown, SMAP
    still prevents the kernel from speculatively reading user space
    memory.  But it does *not* prevent the kernel from reading the
    user value from L1, if it has already been cached.  This is probably
    only a small hurdle for an attacker to overcome.

Thanks to Dave Hansen for contributing the speculative_smap() function.

Thanks to Andrew Cooper for providing the inside scoop on whether swapgs
is serializing on AMD.

[ tglx: Fixed the USER fence decision and polished the comment as suggested
  	by Dave Hansen ]
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>