linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: kernel: Add SMC Session ID to results

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:16:42 -0500
From:   Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...aro.org, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: kernel: Add SMC Session ID to results

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:38:41AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 05:38:31PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > This all comes about because the firmware generates a session id
> > for the SMC call and jams it in x6. The assembly on the
> > non-secure side is written with a tight loop around the smc
> > instruction so that when the return value indicates
> > "interrupted", x6 is kept intact and the non-secure OS can jump
> > back to the secure OS without register reloading. Perhaps
> > referring to x6 as result value is not correct because it's
> > really a session id that's irrelevant once the smc call
> > completes.
> 
> Sorry I missed this bit. The session id is _generated_ by secure
> firmware (probably only when the value passed in x6 == 0 (?))
> and actually returned to the caller so that subsequent (interrupted)
> calls can re-issue the same value, is that correct ?
> 
> If that's the case the value in x6 is a result value from an SMCCC
> perspective and your current FW is not SMCCC compliant.
> 

So is Will's solution to this ok?  If so I will respin with the minor change to
get it working and resend.  If not, do I roll my own smccc wrapper?

Regards,

Andy