linux-kernel - Re: [Qemu-devel] arm64 qemu tests failing in linux-next since 'arm64: kernel: enforce pmuserenr

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20160107163722.GB4064@red-moon>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:37:22 +0000
From:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:	Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] arm64 qemu tests failing in linux-next since
 'arm64: kernel: enforce pmuserenr_el0 initialization and restore'

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 03:58:15PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 January 2016 at 15:53, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 01:25:35PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> We had previously been relying on the kernel not attempting to
> >> touch the PMU if the ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer bits read 0000
> >> ("Performance Monitors extension System registers not implemented").
> >
> > Ok, thanks for looking into this. I wonder why reading pmcr_el0 does
> > not suffer from the same problem though.
> 
> Just a pragmatic thing on QEMU's end, I expect -- the kernel already
> touched PMCR_EL0 and we wanted to be able to boot it, so we have an
> implementation of it.

If that's the case, that was the wrong approach IMHO. QEMU has to comply
with the Aarch64 architecture which means that either the CPU it models
has a Performance Monitors extension or it does not. If reading pmcr_el0
does not fault I could tell you this is a QEMU regression because currently
it _does_ model pmcr_el0 while (hopefully) ID_AA64DFR0_EL1 PMUVer reports
it should not.

I will add code that guards both register accesses to fix both bugs at
once.

Thanks,
Lorenzo
--
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/