linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] arm64: cpufeature: Add scope for capability check

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: <20160415125511.GF22906@arm.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2016 13:55:12 +0100
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	marc.zyngier@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
	mark.rutland@....com, Vadim.Lomovtsev@...iumnetworks.com,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] arm64: cpufeature: Add scope for capability check

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 06:47:46PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 14/04/16 18:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> >Hi Suzuki,
> >
> >On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:24:10PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>Add scope parameter to the arm64_cpu_capabilities::matches(),
> >>so that this can be reused for checking the capability on a
> >>given CPU vs the system wide. By default, the system uses
> >>'system' wide values for setting the CPU_HWCAPs and ELF_HWCAPs.
> 
> >>  static bool __maybe_unused
> >>-is_affected_midr_range(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
> >>+is_affected_midr_range(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unused)
> >
> >Maybe it would be better to WARN if somebody passes SCOPE_SYSTEM, rather
> >than silently treat it as per-cpu?
> 
> Should we worry about errata's which may not necessarily depend on per CPU or
> a local capability (GIC) ?

Why would they be calling is_affected_midr_range?

> If not, we could add a WARN after passing down LOCAL
> scope for errata.

But if we don't care about errata that aren't local, then why would we warn
on LOCAL?

> Right now we always do SCOPE_SYSTEM from update_cpu_capabilities(), even for
> cpu_errata table. There is no specific reason for that.

I'm totally confused. Can you define SCOPE_SYSTEM and SCOPE_LOCAL for me,
please?

Will