Hi Shanker,
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:50:18PM -0600, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
> The function SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 was introduced as part of SMC
> V1.1 Calling Convention to mitigate CVE-2017-5715. This patch uses
> the standard call SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 for Falkor chips instead
> of Silicon provider service ID 0xC2001700.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h | 2 --
> arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S | 8 ------
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 55 ++++++++++++++--------------------------
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/entry.S | 12 ---------
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 10 --------
> 6 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
I'm happy to take this via arm64 if I get an ack from Marc/Christoffer.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> index bb26382..6ecc249 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
> #define ARM64_SVE 22
> #define ARM64_UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 23
> #define ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR 24
> -#define ARM64_HARDEN_BP_POST_GUEST_EXIT 25
> +/* #define ARM64_UNALLOCATED_ENTRY 25 */
> #define ARM64_HAS_RAS_EXTN 26
>
> #define ARM64_NCAPS 27
These aren't ABI, so I think you can just drop
ARM64_HARDEN_BP_POST_GUEST_EXIT and repack the others accordingly.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
> index 24961b7..ab4d0a9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_asm.h
> @@ -68,8 +68,6 @@
>
> extern u32 __init_stage2_translation(void);
>
> -extern void __qcom_hyp_sanitize_btac_predictors(void);
> -
> #endif
>
> #endif /* __ARM_KVM_ASM_H__ */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S
> index e5de335..dc4eb15 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S
> @@ -55,14 +55,6 @@ ENTRY(__bp_harden_hyp_vecs_start)
> .endr
> ENTRY(__bp_harden_hyp_vecs_end)
>
> -ENTRY(__qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_start)
> - stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]!
> - .rept 16
> - bl . + 4
> - .endr
> - ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
> -ENTRY(__qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_end)
> -
> .macro smccc_workaround_1 inst
> sub sp, sp, #(8 * 4)
> stp x2, x3, [sp, #(8 * 0)]
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> index 52f15cd..d779ffd4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> @@ -67,8 +67,6 @@ static int cpu_enable_trap_ctr_access(void *__unused)
> DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(struct bp_hardening_data, bp_hardening_data);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> -extern char __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_start[];
> -extern char __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_end[];
> extern char __smccc_workaround_1_smc_start[];
> extern char __smccc_workaround_1_smc_end[];
> extern char __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_start[];
> @@ -115,8 +113,6 @@ static void __install_bp_hardening_cb(bp_hardening_cb_t fn,
> spin_unlock(&bp_lock);
> }
> #else
> -#define __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_start NULL
> -#define __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_end NULL
> #define __smccc_workaround_1_smc_start NULL
> #define __smccc_workaround_1_smc_end NULL
> #define __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_start NULL
> @@ -161,12 +157,25 @@ static void call_hvc_arch_workaround_1(void)
> arm_smccc_1_1_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, NULL);
> }
>
> +static void qcom_link_stack_sanitization(void)
> +{
> + u64 tmp;
> +
> + asm volatile("mov %0, x30 \n"
> + ".rept 16 \n"
> + "bl . + 4 \n"
> + ".endr \n"
> + "mov x30, %0 \n"
> + : "=&r" (tmp));
> +}
> +
> static int enable_smccc_arch_workaround_1(void *data)
> {
> const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry = data;
> bp_hardening_cb_t cb;
> void *smccc_start, *smccc_end;
> struct arm_smccc_res res;
> + u32 midr = read_cpuid_id();
>
> if (!entry->matches(entry, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU))
> return 0;
> @@ -199,33 +208,15 @@ static int enable_smccc_arch_workaround_1(void *data)
> return 0;
> }
>
> + if (((midr & MIDR_CPU_MODEL_MASK) == MIDR_QCOM_FALKOR) ||
> + ((midr & MIDR_CPU_MODEL_MASK) == MIDR_QCOM_FALKOR_V1))
> + cb = qcom_link_stack_sanitization;
Is this just a performance thing? Do you actually see an advantage over
always making the firmware call? We've seen minimal impact in our testing.
Will
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
