linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/26] arm64: alternative: Apply alternatives early in boot process

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 11:25:34 +0100
From:   Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, marc.zyngier@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        christoffer.dall@....com, james.morse@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/26] arm64: alternative: Apply alternatives early in
 boot process



On 25/05/18 11:00, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 25/05/18 10:49, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
>>
>> Currently alternatives are applied very late in the boot process (and
>> a long time after we enable scheduling). Some alternative sequences,
>> such as those that alter the way CPU context is stored, must be applied
>> much earlier in the boot sequence.
>>
>> Introduce apply_boot_alternatives() to allow some alternatives to be
>> applied immediately after we detect the CPU features of the boot CPU.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
>> [julien.thierry@....com: rename to fit new cpufeature framework better,
>>              apply BOOT_SCOPE feature early in boot]
>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
>> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative.h |  3 +--
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h  |  2 ++
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c      | 30 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c       |  5 +++++
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c              |  7 +++++++
>>   5 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> ...
> 
>> +unsigned long boot_capabilities;
>> +
>>   /*
>>    * Flag to indicate if we have computed the system wide
>>    * capabilities based on the boot time active CPUs. This
>> @@ -1370,6 +1372,9 @@ static void __update_cpu_capabilities(const 
>> struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
>>           if (!cpus_have_cap(caps->capability) && caps->desc)
>>               pr_info("%s %s\n", info, caps->desc);
>>           cpus_set_cap(caps->capability);
>> +
>> +        if (scope_mask & SCOPE_BOOT_CPU)
>> +            __set_bit(caps->capability, &boot_capabilities);
> 
> Julien
> 
> I think this check is problematic. The scope_mask passed on by the boot CPU
> is (SCOPE_BOOT_CPU | SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) to cover both BOOT CPU 
> capabilities *and*
> CPU local capabilites on the boot CPU. So, you might apply the 
> alternatives for
> a "local" CPU erratum, which is not intended. You may change the above 
> check to :
> 
>      if (caps->type & SCOPE_BOOT_CPU)
> 
> to make sure you check the "capability" has the SCOPE_BOOT_CPU set.
> 

Makes sense, I'll do that.

Thanks,

-- 
Julien Thierry