On 14/12/17 13:17, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 11/12/17 14:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> So far, we're using a complicated sequence of alternatives to
>> patch the kernel/hyp VA mask on non-VHE, and NOP out the
>> masking altogether when on VHE.
>>
>> THe newly introduced dynamic patching gives us the opportunity
>> to simplify that code by patching a single instruction with
>> the correct mask (instead of the mind bending cummulative masking
>> we have at the moment) or even a single NOP on VHE.
>
> (and just a single NOP on VHE?)
Yes, much better. Thanks.
>
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/haslr.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/haslr.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..5e1643a4e7bf
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/haslr.c
>
>> +u32 __init kvm_update_va_mask(struct alt_instr *alt, int index, u32 oinsn)
>> +{
>> + u32 rd, rn, insn;
>> + u64 imm;
>> +
>> + /* We only expect a 1 instruction sequence */
>> + BUG_ON((alt->alt_len / sizeof(insn)) != 1);
>> +
>> + /* VHE doesn't need any address translation, let's NOP everything */
>> + if (has_vhe())
>> + return aarch64_insn_gen_nop();
>> +
>> + rd = aarch64_insn_decode_register(AARCH64_INSN_REGTYPE_RD, oinsn);
>> + rn = aarch64_insn_decode_register(AARCH64_INSN_REGTYPE_RN, oinsn);
>> +
>> + switch (index) {
>> + default:
>> + /* Something went wrong... */
>> + insn = AARCH64_BREAK_FAULT;
>> + break;
>
> Can this happen? You bug-on alt->alt_len != 1-instruction above, and the loop in
> __apply_alternatives() is calculated in the same way.
> If it can, BUG_ON(index != 0) should catch both cases in one go.
No, it cannot happen. Yes, I'm paranoid. I guess I should just
initialise insn to AARCH64_BREAK_FAULT and achieve the same level of
paranoia without that default clause.
Oh, and it keeps GCC quiet.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
