Hi Will,
On 03/05/2018 11:15 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:57:58AM -0600, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> On 03/05/2018 09:56 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Sure, I'll remove it completely in v2 patch.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we've couple of advantages using the standard SMCCC_ARCH_WOKAROUND_1 framework.
>> - Improves the code readability.
>> - Avoid the unnecessary MIDR checks on each vCPU exit.
>> - Validates ID_AA64PFR0_CVS2 feature for Falkor chips.
>> - Avoids the 2nd link stack sanitization workaround in firmware.
>
> What I mean is, can we drop qcom_link_stack_sanitization altogether and
> use the SMCCC interface for everything?
>
No, We would like to keep it qcom_link_stack_sanitization for host kernel
since it takes a few CPU cycles instead of heavyweight SMCCC call.
I posted v2 patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10259357/ to address
cpucaps.h cleanup review comments.
> Will
>
--
Shanker Donthineni
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
