Quoting Will Deacon (2020-10-21 00:57:23)
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 02:45:43PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > According to the SMCCC spec (7.5.2 Discovery) the
> > ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 function id only returns 0, 1, and
> > SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED corresponding to "workaround required",
> > "workaround not required but implemented", and "who knows, you're on
> > your own" respectively. For kvm hypercalls (hvc), we've implemented this
> > function id to return SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED, 1, and
> > SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED. The SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED return value is not a
> > thing for this function id, and is probably copy/pasted from the
> > SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2 function id that does support it.
> >
> > Clean this up by returning 0, 1, and SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED
> > appropriately. Changing this exposes the problem that
> > spectre_v2_get_cpu_fw_mitigation_state() assumes a
> > SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED return value means we are vulnerable, but really
> > it means we have no idea and should assume we can't do anything about
> > mitigation. Put another way, it better be unaffected because it can't be
> > mitigated in the firmware (in this case kvm) as the call isn't
> > implemented!
> >
> > Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Fixes: c118bbb52743 ("arm64: KVM: Propagate full Spectre v2 workaround state to KVM guests")
> > Fixes: 73f381660959 ("arm64: Advertise mitigation of Spectre-v2, or lack thereof")
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > This will require a slightly different backport to stable kernels, but
> > at least it looks like this is a problem given that this return value
> > isn't valid per the spec and we've been going around it by returning
> > something invalid for some time.
> >
> > arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 3 +--
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> > index 68b710f1b43f..00bd54f63f4f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> > @@ -149,10 +149,9 @@ static enum mitigation_state spectre_v2_get_cpu_fw_mitigation_state(void)
> > case SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS:
> > return SPECTRE_MITIGATED;
> > case SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_RET_UNAFFECTED:
> > + case SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED: /* Good luck w/ the Gatekeeper of Gozer */
> > return SPECTRE_UNAFFECTED;
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure this is correct. The SMCCC spec is terrifically
> unhelpful:
>
> NOT_SUPPORTED:
> Either:
> * None of the PEs in the system require firmware mitigation for CVE-2017-5715.
> * The system contains at least 1 PE affected by CVE-2017-5715 that has no firmware
> mitigation available.
> * The firmware does not provide any information about whether firmware mitigation is
> required.
>
> so we can't tell whether the thing is vulnerable or not in this case, and
> have to assume that it is.
If I'm reading the TF-A code correctly it looks like this will return
SMC_UNK if the platform decides that "This flag can be set to 0 by the
platform if none of the PEs in the system need the workaround." Where
the flag is WORKAROUND_CVE_2017_5715 and the call handler returns 1 if
the errata doesn't apply but the config is enabled, 0 if the errata
applies and the config is enabled, or SMC_UNK (I guess this is
NOT_SUPPORTED?) if the config is disabled[2].
So TF-A could disable this config and then the kernel would think it is
vulnerable when it actually isn't? The spec is a pile of ectoplasma
here.
>
> > default:
> > - fallthrough;
> > - case SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED:
> > return SPECTRE_VULNERABLE;
> > }
> > }
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > index 9824025ccc5c..868486957808 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > val = SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS;
> > break;
> > case SPECTRE_UNAFFECTED:
> > - val = SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED;
> > + val = SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
>
> Which means we need to return SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_RET_UNAFFECTED here, I
> suppose?
>
Does the kernel implement a workaround in the case that no guest PE is
affected? If so then returning 1 sounds OK to me, but otherwise
NOT_SUPPORTED should work per the spec.
[1] https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a.git/tree/docs/design/cpu-specific-build-macros.rst#n14
[2] https://git.trustedfirmware.org/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a.git/tree/services/arm_arch_svc/arm_arch_svc_setup.c#n30
