linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 10/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Emulate the EL1 phys timer register access

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: <CAHyh4ximsWC+9UBc7=zinoqbnt9y1dOWzMqmTBLZ0SkS5HzPFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:38:07 -0500
From:   Jintack Lim <jintack@...columbia.edu>
To:     Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        KVM General <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 10/10] KVM: arm/arm64: Emulate the EL1 phys timer
 register access

Hi Peter,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Peter Maydell
<peter.maydell@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 30 January 2017 at 17:08, Jintack Lim <jintack@...columbia.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
>>> Shouldn't we take the ENABLE bit into account? The ARMv8 ARM version I
>>> have at hand (version h) seems to indicate that we should, but we should
>>> check with the latest and greatest...
>>
>> Thanks! I was not clear about this. I have ARM ARM version k, and it
>> says that 'When the value of the ENABLE bit is 0, the ISTATUS field is
>> UNKNOWN.' So I thought the istatus value doesn't matter if ENABLE is
>> 0, and just set istatus bit regardless of ENABLE bit. If this is not
>> what the manual meant, then I'm happy to fix this.
>
> It looks like the spec has been relaxed between the doc version
> that Marc was looking at and the current one. So it's OK for
> an implementation to either (a) set ISTATUS to 0 if ENABLE
> is 0, or (b) do what you've done and set ISTATUS according
> to the timer comparison whether ENABLE is clear or not
> (or even (c) set ISTATUS to a random value if ENABLE is clear,
> and other less likely choices).
> I think we should add a comment to note that it's architecturally
> UNKNOWN and we've made a choice for our implementation convenience.

Thanks for the clarification. I'll put a comment in v3.

>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>