linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround

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]

Message-Id: <201303061509.07905@pali>
Date:	Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:09:07 +0100
From:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc:	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Ивайло Димитров 
	<freemangordon@....bg>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround

On Monday 04 March 2013 19:58:06 Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> [130301 06:42]:
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ивайло Димитров 
<freemangordon@....bg> wrote:
> > > They look similar, but they are not equivalent :). The
> > > first major difference is here (code taken from
> > > omap-smc.S)
> > > 
> > >> ENTRY(omap_smc2)
> > >> 
> > >>          stmfd   sp!, {r4-r12, lr}
> > >>          mov     r3, r2
> > >>          mov     r2, r1
> > >>          mov     r1, #0x0        @ Process ID
> > >>          mov     r6, #0xff
> > >>          mov     r12, #0x00      @ Secure Service ID
> > > 
> > > Always zero, while RX51 PPA expects a real value. I wonder
> > > if it is a bug, but anyway I don't see the id parameter
> > > (R0) used.
> > > 
> > >>          mov     r7, #0
> > >>          mcr     p15, 0, r7, c7, c5, 6
> > > 
> > > According to ARM TRM, this is "Invalidate entire branch
> > > predictor array"(IIUC). NFC why it is needed here, but
> > > this will not work on RX-51 until IBE bit in ACR is set.
> > > 
> > >>          dsb
> > >>          dmb
> > >>          smc     #0
> > > 
> > > RX-51 needs smc #1 ;)
> > > 
> > >>          ldmfd   sp!, {r4-r12, pc}
> > > 
> > > The next major difference is that RX-51 expects parameter
> > > count passed in R3[0] to be the count of the remaining
> > > parameters +1, but omap_secure_dispatcher (in
> > > omap-secure.c) is passing the exact count of the
> > > remaining parameters.
> > > 
> > > I guess all of the above problems can be
> > > fixed/workarounded, but I wonder does it worth. Not to
> > > say that I don't have BB around to test if the code still
> > > works if I make changes to omap2-secure.c/omap-smc.S :)
> > 
> > Yep, that was my point - instead of introducing new
> > functions, extending the existing functions to handle new
> > requirements is better solution, IMHO.
> 
> I think there have been patches posted for ARM generic SMC
> handling. Might be worth looking at those a bit and see if
> this can be made generic. I think only the SMC call numbering
> is different for various SoCs?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony

Hi Tony, where are patches for ARM generic SMC handling?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)