| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1442413280-31885-23-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:21:20 +0100 From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com> To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Cc: Catalin.Marinas@....com, Will.Deacon@....com, Mark.Rutland@....com, edward.nevill@...aro.org, aph@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andre.przywara@....com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, dave.martin@....com, marc.zyngier@....com, "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com> Subject: [PATCH 22/22] arm64: feature registers: Documentation From: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com> Documentation of the infrastructure Signed-off-by: Suzuki K. Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> --- Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.txt | 209 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 209 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.txt diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.txt b/Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2367164 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/arm64/cpu-feature-registers.txt @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@ + ARM64 CPU Feature Registers + =========================== + +Author: Suzuki K. Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> + + +This file describes the API for exporting the AArch64 CPU ID/feature registers +to userspace. + +1. Motivation +--------------- + +The ARM architecture defines a set of feature registers, which describe +the capabilities of the CPU/system. Access to these system registers is +restricted from EL0 and there is no reliable way for an application to +extract this information to make better decisions at runtime. There is +limited information available to the application via ELF_HWCAPs, however +there are some issues with their usage. + + a) Any change to the HWCAPs requires an update to userspace (e.g libc) + to detect the new changes, which can take a long time to appear in + distributions. Exposing the registers allows applications to get the + information without requiring updates to the toolchains. + + b) Access to HWCAPs is sometimes restricted (e.g prior to libc, or when ld is + initialised at startup time). + + c) HWCAPs cannot represent non-boolean information effectively. The + architecture defines a canonical format for representing features + in the ID registers; this is well defined and is capable of + representing all valid architecture variations. Exposing the ID + registers avoids having to come up with HWCAP representations + and parsing code. + + +2. Requirements +----------------- + + a) Safety : + Applications should be able to use the information provided by the + infrastructure to run optimally safely across the system. This has + greater implications on a system with heterogeneous CPUs. The + infrastructure exports a value that is safe across all the available + CPU on the system. + + e.g, If at least one CPU doesn't implement CRC32 instructions, while others + do, we should report that the CRC32 is not implemented. Otherwise an + application could crash when scheduled on the CPU which doesn't support + CRC32. + + b) Security : + Applications should only be able to receive information that is relevant + to the normal operation in userspace. Hence, some of the fields + are masked out and the values of the fields are set to indicate the + feature is 'not supported' (See the 'visible' field in the + table in Section 4). Also, the kernel may manipulate the fields based on what + it supports. e.g, If FP is not supported by the kernel, the values + could indicate that the FP is not available (even when the CPU provides + it). + + c) Implementation Defined Features + The infrastructure doesn't expose any register which is + IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED as per ARMv8-A Architecture. + + d) CPU Identification : + MIDR_EL1 is exposed to help identify the processor. On a heterogeneous + system, this could be racy (just like getcpu()). The process could be + migrated to another CPU by the time it uses the register value, unless the + CPU affinity is set. Hence, there is no guarantee that the value reflects the + processor that it is currently executing on. The REVIDR is not exposed due + to this constraint, as REVIDR makes sense only in conjunction with the MIDR. + Alternately, MIDR_EL1 and REVIDR_EL1 are exposed via sysfs at : + /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$ID/identification/ + \- midr + \- revidr + +The list of supported registers and the attributes of individual +feature bits are listed in section 4. Unless there is absolute necessity, +we don't encourage the addition of new feature registers to the list. +In any case, it should comply to the requirements listed above. + +3. Implementation +-------------------- + +The infrastructure is built on the emulation of the 'MRS' instruction. +Accessing a restricted system register from an application generates an +exception and ends up in SIGILL being delivered to the process. +The infrastructure hooks into the exception handler and emulates the +operation if the source belongs to the supported system register space. + +The infrastructure emulates only the following system register space: + Op0=3, Op1=0, CRn=0 + +(See Table C5-6 'System instruction encodings for System register accesses' + in ARMv8 ARM, for the list of registers). + + +The following rules are applied to the value returned by the infrastructure: + + a) The value of an 'IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED' field is set to 0. + b) The value of a reserved field is populated with the reserved + value as defined by the architecture. + c) The value of a field marked as not 'visible', is set to indicate + the feature is missing (as defined by the architecture). + d) The value of a 'visible' field holds the system wide safe value + for the particular feature(except for MIDR_EL1, see section 4). + +There are only a few registers visible to the userspace. See Section 4, +for the list of 'visible' registers. + +The registers which are either reserved RAZ or IMPLEMENTAION DEFINED are +emulated as 0. + +All others are emulated as having 'invisible' features. + +4. List of exposed registers +----------------------------- + + 1) ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1 - Instruction Set Attribute Register 0 + x--------------------------------------------------x + | Name | bits | visible | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | RAZ | [63-20] | n | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | CRC32 | [19-16] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | SHA2 | [15-12] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | SHA1 | [11-8] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | AES | [7-4] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | RAZ | [3-0] | n | + x--------------------------------------------------x + + 2) ID_AA64ISAR1_EL1 - Instruction Set Attribute Register 1 + x--------------------------------------------------x + | Name | bits | visible | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | RAZ | [63-0] | y | + x--------------------------------------------------x + + 3) ID_AA64PFR0_EL1 - Processor Feature Register 0 + x--------------------------------------------------x + | Name | bits | visible | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | RAZ | [63-28] | n | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | GIC | [27-24] | n | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | AdvSIMD | [23-20] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | FP | [19-16] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | EL3 | [15-12] | n | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | EL2 | [11-8] | n | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | EL1 | [7-4] | n | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | EL0 | [3-0] | n | + x--------------------------------------------------x + + 4) ID_AA64PFR1_EL1 - Processor Feature Register 1 + x--------------------------------------------------x + | Name | bits | visible | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | RAZ | [63-0] | y | + x--------------------------------------------------x + + 5) MIDR_EL1 - Main ID Register + x--------------------------------------------------x + | Name | bits | visible | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | RAZ | [63-32] | n | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | Implementer | [31-24] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | Variant | [23-20] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | Architecture | [19-16] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | PartNum | [15-4] | y | + |--------------------------------------------------| + | Revision | [3-0] | y | + x--------------------------------------------------x + + NOTE: The 'visible' fields of MIDR_EL1 will contain the value + as available on the CPU where it is fetched and is not a system + wide safe value. + + +Appendix +----------- + +I. CPUID feature value scheme + + Each 4bit field is a signed value, with RAZ as the original value defined by + the architecture. When a feature is added or extended the field is incremented. + If an existing feature(whose value is 0) is removed, the value becomes negative(0xf). + + e.g: 1) Value for ID_AA64PFR0:FP + 0 - Floating Point instructions supported. + 0xf - Floating Point instructions not supported. + + 2) Value for ID_AA64MMFR0:TGran16 + 0 - 16K page size not supported. + 1 - 16K page size supported. + -- 1.7.9.5 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists