Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v3 06/18] arm/arm64: psci: Don't run C code without stack or vectors

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 10:41:55AM +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> On 1/2/20 6:11 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 16:09:37 +0000
> > Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +.global asm_cpu_psci_cpu_die
> >> +asm_cpu_psci_cpu_die:
> >> +	ldr	r0, =PSCI_0_2_FN_CPU_OFF
> >> +	hvc	#0
> >> +	b	.
> > I am wondering if this implementation is actually too simple. Both
> > the current implementation and the kernel clear at least the first
> > three arguments to 0.
> > I failed to find a requirement for doing this (nothing in the SMCCC
> > or the PSCI spec), but I guess it would make sense when looking at
> > forward compatibility.
> 
> The SMC calling convention only specifies the values for the arguments that are
> used by a function, not the values for all possible arguments. kvm-unit-tests sets
> the other arguments to 0 because the function prototype that does the actual SMC
> call takes 4 arguments. The value 0 is a random value that was chosen for those
> unused parameters. For example, it could have been a random number on each call.

That's correct.

A caller can leave arbitrary values in non-argument registers, in the
same manner as a caller of an AAPCS function. The callee should not
consume those values as they are not arguments.

> Let me put it another way. Suggesting that unused arguments should be set to 0 is
> the same as suggesting that normal C function that adheres to procedure call
> standard for arm64 should always have 8 arguments, and for a particular function
> that doesn't use all of them, they should be set to 0 by the caller.

Heh, same rationale. :)

> @Mark Rutland has worked on the SMC implementation for the Linux kernel, if he
> wants to chime in on this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> > At the very least it's a change in behaviour (ignoring the missing printf).
> > So shall we just clear r1, r2 and r3 here? (Same for arm64 below)

There's no need to zero non-argument registers, and it could potentially
mask bugs in callees, so I don't think it's a good idea to do so.

If you really want to test that the callee is robust and correct, it
would be better to randomize the content of non-argument regsiters to
fuzz the callee.

Thanks,
Mark.



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux