On 24/05/18 13:30, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 01:03:50PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 23/05/18 20:45, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 06:24:13PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 21/05/18 12:45, Russell King wrote:
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_PSCI
>>>>> + if (psci_ops.smccc_version != SMCCC_VERSION_1_0) {
>>>>> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + switch (psci_ops.conduit) {
>>>>> + case PSCI_CONDUIT_HVC:
>>>>> + arm_smccc_1_1_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
>>>>> + ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, &res);
>>>>> + if ((int)res.a0 < 0)
>>>>> + break;
>>>>
>>>> I just realised that there is a small, but significant difference
>>>> between this and the arm64 version: On arm64, we have a table of
>>>> vulnerable implementations, and we try the mitigation on a per-cpu
>>>> basis. Here, you entirely rely on the firmware to discover whether the
>>>> CPU needs mitigation or not. You then need to check for a return value
>>>> of 1, which indicates that although the mitigation is implemented, it is
>>>> not required on this particular CPU.
>>>
>>> Okay, so digging further into the documentation seems to suggest that we
>>> only need to check the firmware for A72 and A57 CPUs, and given this
>>> statement:
>>>
>>> "Arm recommends that the caller only call this on PEs for which a
>>> firmware based mitigation of CVE-2017-5715 is required, or where
>>> a local workaround is infeasible."
>>>
>>> it seems that the right answer is to ignore the PSCI based methods when
>>> we have anything but these CPUs. Do you agree?
>>
>> For CPUs that are produced by ARM, I agree. I don't know about CPUs
>> produced by ARM licensees though, so I'd rather use the opposite logic:
>> Use the firmware unless the CPU is one of those that can be easily
>> mitigated at EL1 (or isn't affected).
>
> The "or isn't affected" is the difficult bit - I guess we could match
> on the CPU vendor field though, and just reject all ARM CPUs that
> aren't explicitly listed as having a problem.
That seems sensible. ARM has published an exhaustive status for all its
cores, which we can trust. For architecture licensees, I'm not aware of
such a list, but I'd expect them to communicate one if they were affected.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
