| 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: <6d2eae60-44b7-e5c2-0e71-f27ce2322237@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:50:55 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] arm64: Add ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 BP hardening
support
On 26/01/18 14:28, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Add the detection and runtime code for ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1.
> It is lovely. Really.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S | 20 ++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S
> index 76225c2611ea..add7e08a018d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/bpi.S
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/linkage.h>
> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
>
> .macro ventry target
> .rept 31
> @@ -85,3 +86,22 @@ ENTRY(__qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_start)
> .endr
> ldp x29, x30, [sp], #16
> ENTRY(__qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_end)
> +
> +.macro smccc_workaround_1 inst
> + sub sp, sp, #(8 * 4)
> + stp x2, x3, [sp, #(16 * 0)]
This seems unnecessarily confusing - using either units of registers, or
of register pairs, is fine, but mixing both in the same sequence just
hurts more than it needs to.
> + stp x0, x1, [sp, #(16 * 1)]
> + orr w0, wzr, #ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1
Writing this as a MOV like a sane person would make things 0.37% more
lovely, I promise ;)
> + \inst #0
> + ldp x2, x3, [sp, #(16 * 0)]
> + ldp x0, x1, [sp, #(16 * 1)]
> + add sp, sp, #(8 * 4)
> +.endm
> +
> +ENTRY(__smccc_workaround_1_smc_start)
> + smccc_workaround_1 smc
> +ENTRY(__smccc_workaround_1_smc_end)
> +
> +ENTRY(__smccc_workaround_1_hvc_start)
> + smccc_workaround_1 hvc
> +ENTRY(__smccc_workaround_1_hvc_end)
That said, should we not be implementing this lot in smccc-call.S...
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> index ed6881882231..f1501873f2e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> @@ -70,6 +70,10 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(struct bp_hardening_data, bp_hardening_data);
> extern char __psci_hyp_bp_inval_start[], __psci_hyp_bp_inval_end[];
> extern char __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_start[];
> extern char __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_end[];
> +extern char __smccc_workaround_1_smc_start[];
> +extern char __smccc_workaround_1_smc_end[];
> +extern char __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_start[];
> +extern char __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_end[];
>
> static void __copy_hyp_vect_bpi(int slot, const char *hyp_vecs_start,
> const char *hyp_vecs_end)
> @@ -116,6 +120,10 @@ static void __install_bp_hardening_cb(bp_hardening_cb_t fn,
> #define __psci_hyp_bp_inval_end NULL
> #define __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_start NULL
> #define __qcom_hyp_sanitize_link_stack_end NULL
> +#define __smccc_workaround_1_smc_start NULL
> +#define __smccc_workaround_1_smc_end NULL
> +#define __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_start NULL
> +#define __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_end NULL
>
> static void __install_bp_hardening_cb(bp_hardening_cb_t fn,
> const char *hyp_vecs_start,
> @@ -142,17 +150,78 @@ static void install_bp_hardening_cb(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
> __install_bp_hardening_cb(fn, hyp_vecs_start, hyp_vecs_end);
> }
>
> +#include <uapi/linux/psci.h>
> +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> #include <linux/psci.h>
>
> +static void call_smc_arch_workaround_1(void)
> +{
> + register int w0 asm("w0") = ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1;
> + asm volatile("smc #0\n"
> + : "+r" (w0));
> +}
> +
> +static void call_hvc_arch_workaround_1(void)
> +{
> + register int w0 asm("w0") = ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1;
> + asm volatile("hvc #0\n"
> + : "+r" (w0));
> +}
...such that these could simply be something like:
static void call_{smc,hvc}_arch_workaround_1(void)
{
arm_smccc_v1_1_{smc,hvc}(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1);
}
?
Robin.
> +
> +static bool check_smccc_arch_workaround_1(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
> +{
> + bp_hardening_cb_t cb;
> + void *smccc_start, *smccc_end;
> + struct arm_smccc_res res;
> +
> + if (psci_ops.variant == SMCCC_VARIANT_1_0)
> + return false;
> +
> + switch (psci_ops.conduit) {
> + case PSCI_CONDUIT_HVC:
> + arm_smccc_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
> + ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
> + &res);
> + if (res.a0)
> + return false;
> + cb = call_hvc_arch_workaround_1;
> + smccc_start = __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_start;
> + smccc_end = __smccc_workaround_1_hvc_end;
> + break;
> +
> + case PSCI_CONDUIT_SMC:
> + arm_smccc_smc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
> + ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
> + &res);
> + if (res.a0)
> + return false;
> + cb = call_smc_arch_workaround_1;
> + smccc_start = __smccc_workaround_1_smc_start;
> + smccc_end = __smccc_workaround_1_smc_end;
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + install_bp_hardening_cb(entry, cb, smccc_start, smccc_end);
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int enable_psci_bp_hardening(void *data)
> {
> const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry = data;
>
> - if (psci_ops.get_version)
> + if (psci_ops.get_version) {
> + if (check_smccc_arch_workaround_1(entry))
> + return 0;
> +
> install_bp_hardening_cb(entry,
> (bp_hardening_cb_t)psci_ops.get_version,
> __psci_hyp_bp_inval_start,
> __psci_hyp_bp_inval_end);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists