linux-kernel - Re: runtime check for omap-aes bus access permission (was: Re: 3.13-rc3 (commit 7ce93f3) breaks Nokia N900 DT boot)

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: <20150529155030.GO30984@atomide.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 May 2015 08:50:31 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin@...il.com>
Cc:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...g0.de>,
	linux-omap <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: runtime check for omap-aes bus access permission (was: Re:
 3.13-rc3 (commit 7ce93f3) breaks Nokia N900 DT boot)

* Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin@...il.com> [150528 18:37]:
> On 29 May 2015 at 02:58, Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin@...il.com> wrote:
> > It is only guaranteed to happen immediately (before the next
> > instruction is executed) if the error occurs before the posting-point
> > of the write. However, in that case the error is reported in-band to
> > the cpu, resulting in a (synchronous) bus error which takes precedence
> > over the out-of-band error irq (if any is signalled).
> 
> OK, all this was actually assuming linux uses device-type mappings for
> device mappings, which was also the impression I got from
> build_mem_type_table() in arch/arm/mm/mmu.c (although it's a bit of a
> maze). A quick test however seems to imply otherwise:
> 
> ~# ./bogus-dev-write
> Bus error
> 
> So... linux actually uses strongly-ordered mappings? I really didn't
> expect that, given the performance implications (especially on a
> strictly in-order cpu like the Cortex-A8 which will really just sit
> there picking its nose until the write completes) and I think I recall
> having seen an OCP barrier being used somewhere in driver code...

I believe some TI kernels use strongly-ordered mappings, mainline
kernel does not. Which kernel version are you using?
 
> Well, in that case everything I said is technically still true, except
> the posting point is the peripheral itself. That also means the
> interconnect error reporting mechanism is not really useful for
> probing since you'll get a bus error before any error irq is
> delivered.

Hmm if that's the case then yes we can't use the error irq. However,
what I've seen so far is that we only get the bus error if the
l3_* drivers are configured. I guess some more testing is needed.
 
> So I'd say you're back at having to trap that bus error using the
> exception handling mechanism, which I still suspect shouldn't be hard
> to do.

And in that case it makes sense to do that in the bootloader to
avoid adding any custom early boot code to Linux kernel.
 
> Or perhaps you could probe the device using a DMA access and combine
> that with the interconnect error reporting irq... ;-)

Heh too many dependencies :)

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/