| 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: <570C2BD4.6070402@codeaurora.org> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:57:24 -0400 From: "Abdulhamid, Harb" <harba@...eaurora.org> To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, "Baicar, Tyler" <tbaicar@...eaurora.org> Cc: fu.wei@...aro.org, timur@...eaurora.org, rruigrok@...eaurora.org, ahs3@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, robert.moore@...el.com, lv.zheng@...el.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, devel@...ica.org, Naveen Kaje <nkaje@...eaurora.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/9] arm64: exception: handle instruction abort at current EL On 4/7/2016 3:54 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:36:00 -0600 > "Baicar, Tyler" <tbaicar@...eaurora.org> wrote: > > Hi Tyler, > >> Hello Marc, >> >> On 4/6/2016 9:36 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 06/04/16 16:12, Tyler Baicar wrote: >>>> Add a handler for instruction aborts at the current EL >>>> (ESR_ELx_EC_IABT_CUR) so they are no longer handled in el1_inv. >>>> This allows firmware first handling for possible SEA >>>> (Synchronous External Abort) caused instruction abort at >>>> current EL. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org> >>>> Signed-off-by: Naveen Kaje <nkaje@...eaurora.org> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >>>> index 12e8d2b..f257856 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >>>> @@ -336,6 +336,8 @@ el1_sync: >>>> lsr x24, x1, #ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT // exception class >>>> cmp x24, #ESR_ELx_EC_DABT_CUR // data abort in EL1 >>>> b.eq el1_da >>>> + cmp x24, #ESR_ELx_EC_IABT_CUR // instruction abort in EL1 >>>> + b.eq el1_ia >>>> cmp x24, #ESR_ELx_EC_SYS64 // configurable trap >>>> b.eq el1_undef >>>> cmp x24, #ESR_ELx_EC_SP_ALIGN // stack alignment exception >>>> @@ -363,6 +365,23 @@ el1_da: >>>> // disable interrupts before pulling preserved data off the stack >>>> disable_irq >>>> kernel_exit 1 >>>> +el1_ia: >>>> + /* >>>> + * Instruction abort handling >>>> + */ >>>> + mrs x0, far_el1 >>>> + enable_dbg >>>> + // re-enable interrupts if they were enabled in the aborted context >>>> + tbnz x23, #7, 1f // PSR_I_BIT >>>> + enable_irq >>>> +1: >>>> + orr x1, x1, #1 << 24 // use reserved ISS bit for instruction aborts >>>> + mov x2, sp // struct pt_regs >>>> + bl do_mem_abort >>>> + >>>> + // disable interrupts before pulling preserved data off the stack >>>> + disable_irq >>>> + kernel_exit 1 >>>> el1_sp_pc: >>>> /* >>>> * Stack or PC alignment exception handling >>>> >>> What happens if you were running at EL2 when this faults gets injected? >>> It looks like KVM needs something similar, doesn't it? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> M. >> Thank you for your comment. I don't think this case is possible, or at >> least the current KVM code suggests that this case should never happen. >> In the EL1 code, we get to this case via the vector: >> >> ventry el1_sync // Synchronous EL1h >> >> The EL2 KVM equivalent appears to be in arch/arm64/kvm/hyp-entry.S and is: >> >> ventry el2h_sync_invalid // Synchronous EL2h >> >> This vector is defined as an invalid_vector and has a comment suggesting >> that it should never happen: >> >> /* None of these should ever happen */ >> ... >> invalid_vector el2h_sync_invalid >> >> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like this case should not >> be possible. > > This comments really means that we shouldn't ever take any of these > exception. If we do, we'll crash and burn (just like the kernel didn't > expect to take an instruction fault from the kernel itself, up until > this patch). > > I expect that the firmware does inject the fault into the exception > level it has preempted. So let me turn the question the other way > around: what guarantees that we will never have to handle such a fault > at EL2? > It is definitely possible to take an external abort (instruction or data) as well as SError interrupts in EL2. One would expect that they would be trapped in EL2 when running guest VMs. However, this patch was not intended to address KVM APEI support at EL2 (at this point). The aim here was to enable APEI (namely firmware first error handling support) in the host/root kernel. The general idea of how APEI would work with Hypervisors may vary depending on the specific Hypervisor (e.g. KVM, Xen, HyperV, VMWare, etc.). For example, if the Hypervisor (i.e. code running at EL2) traps SEI/SEA exceptions (either during EL2 code execution or an SEI/SEA exception encountered during guest VM execution), the Hypervisor may not have built-in APEI support, or the ability to handle such faults directly. One option is for the Hypervisor to forward or "replay" SEA/SEI exceptions to the host/root kernel for handling of such exceptions. If the root/host kernel happens to support APEI, the kernel will attempt to leverage GHES information to identify the severity of the error, and if possible, may attempt to recover from the error. Essentially, the final decision on how to handle SEA/SEI faults falls on the root/host kernel. Extending APEI support to KVM should be addressed in a separate patchset, as the implication would go beyond just the EL2 exception handlers we are referencing here. There would be much more work and validation needed. > As a corollary, what happens when the firmware injects a fault > triggered by a VM running at EL1, under the control of a hypervisor > running at EL2? There should be some form of exception delegation to > the hypervisor, which makes the lack of handling at EL2 even more > worrying. > > Thanks, > > M. > See above example. The Hypervisor could forward/replay such faults to the root/host kernel (or DOM0 in the case of Xen). Just a clarification on firmware injecting faults: The firmware does not inject faults directly into a particular exception level. If hardware error injection is supported, it will be at a particular physical address in memory, possibly a specific cache line, or other specific hardware component. For example, one could target a specific exception level by injecting an error at an instruction address that is known to run at EL2, but the fault injection itself does not usually target exception levels. Thanks, Harb -- Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists