linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] irqchip/gic: Identify and report any reserved SGI IDs

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: <5671A39D.9000500@arm.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:47:09 +0000
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] irqchip/gic: Identify and report any reserved SGI
 IDs

Hi Daniel,

On 16/12/15 17:08, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> It is possible for the secure world to reserve certain SGI IDs for itself.
> Currently we have limited visibility of which IDs are safe to use for IPIs.
> 
> Modify the GIC initialization code to actively search for reserved SGI IDs
> and report if any are found. Warn even more loudly if the reserved SGIs
> overlap with the normal IPI range.
> 
> When run on an Inforce IFC6410 (Snapdragon 600) this code produces the
> following messages:
> ~~~ cut here ~~~
> CPU0: Detected reserved SGI IDs: 14-15
> CPU1: Detected reserved SGI IDs: 15
> CPU2: Detected reserved SGI IDs: 15
> CPU3: Detected reserved SGI IDs: 15
> ~~~ cut here ~~~
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> index abf2ffaed392..541622da7049 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> @@ -490,6 +490,7 @@ static void gic_cpu_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic)
>  	void __iomem *base = gic_data_cpu_base(gic);
>  	unsigned int cpu_mask, cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	int i;
> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(sgi_mask, 16);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Setting up the CPU map is only relevant for the primary GIC
> @@ -511,6 +512,58 @@ static void gic_cpu_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic)
>  		for (i = 0; i < NR_GIC_CPU_IF; i++)
>  			if (i != cpu)
>  				gic_cpu_map[i] &= ~cpu_mask;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Fiddle with the SGI set/clear registers to try identify
> +		 * any IPIs that are reserved for secure world.
> +		 */
> +		bitmap_fill(sgi_mask, 16);
> +
> +		for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
> +			void __iomem *set_reg =
> +			    dist_base + GIC_DIST_SGI_PENDING_SET + (i & ~3);
> +			void __iomem *clear_reg =
> +			    dist_base + GIC_DIST_SGI_PENDING_CLEAR + (i & ~3);
> +			unsigned long mask = cpu_mask << (8*(i%4));
> +			unsigned long flags, pending, after_clear, after_set;

Please make these u32, as unsigned long is 64bit on arm64. Another thing
to note is that GICD_CPEND{S,C}SGIRn are byte accessible, so you can
save yourself some this hassle shifting things around and just write a
single byte. You're already writing 16 times anyway...

Another thing to consider is that these locations are only defined on
GICv2 and not GICv1, so this patch is likely to cause trouble on older HW.

> +
> +			local_irq_save(flags);

Why do you need to do this? The CPU interface is not enabled yet, so I
can't see how you could get an interrupt on this CPU.

> +
> +			/* record original value */
> +			pending = readl_relaxed(set_reg);
> +
> +			/* clear, test, set, and test again */
> +			writel_relaxed(mask, clear_reg);
> +			after_clear = readl_relaxed(set_reg);
> +			writel_relaxed(mask, set_reg);
> +			after_set = readl_relaxed(set_reg);

It should be enough to write to the SET register, and read back, as the
bit is RAZ/WI when the interrupt is Group-0.

> +
> +			/* restore original value */
> +			writel_relaxed(mask & ~pending, clear_reg);
> +
> +			local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +			if (mask & ~after_clear && mask & after_set)
> +				clear_bit(i, sgi_mask);
> +		}
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Show the SGI mask if it is "interesting". Here interesting
> +		 * means that the set/clear register is implemented
> +		 * (mask is not full) and it tells us that the secure world
> +		 * has reserved some SGIs (mask is not empty).
> +		 */
> +		if (!bitmap_full(sgi_mask, 16) && !bitmap_empty(sgi_mask, 16))
> +			pr_info("CPU%d: Detected reserved SGI IDs: %*pbl\n",
> +				cpu, 16, sgi_mask);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Yell if the reserved IDs make the system unviable.
> +		 */
> +		if (!bitmap_full(sgi_mask, 16) &&
> +		    find_first_bit(sgi_mask, 16) < NR_IPI)
> +			pr_crit("CPU%d: Not enough SGI IDs; expect failure\n",
> +				cpu);
>  	}
>  
>  	gic_cpu_config(dist_base, NULL);
> 

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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/