linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/16] arm64: Add support for checking errata based on a list of MIDRS

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: <0558db28-b1f1-b249-6098-99e1071f613f@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:57:44 +0000
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To:     Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        ckadabi@...eaurora.org, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
        marc.zyngier@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jnair@...iumnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] arm64: Add support for checking errata based on a
 list of MIDRS

On 26/01/18 14:16, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:28:06PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Add helpers for detecting an errata on list of midr ranges
>> of affected CPUs.
> 
> This doesn't describe what the patch does: instead, helpers are being
> added for checking whether an MIDR falls in one of multiple affected
> model(s) and or revision(s).
> 
> Doing this makes sense, but is it really worth it?

Well, we need th MIDR list helpers anyway for other things:
   - White list of CPUs where we know KPTI is not needed
   - Black list of CPUs where DBM shouldn't be enabled.

So all we do is add a new type which could reduce the number of entries.

> 
> We might save 100-200 bytes in the kernel image for now, but a common
> workaround for errata on multiple unrelated cpus is surely a rare case.
> 
> Only if there are many such lists, or if the lists become large does
> this start to seem a clear win.
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h |  1 +
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c      | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>   2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> index a3d54c2c411f..70712de687c7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> 
> [...]
> 
>> @@ -330,22 +353,7 @@ const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_errata[] = {
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR
>>   	{
>>   		.capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR,
>> -		ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A57),
>> -		.enable = enable_psci_bp_hardening,
>> -	},
>> -	{
>> -		.capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR,
>> -		ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A72),
>> -		.enable = enable_psci_bp_hardening,
>> -	},
>> -	{
>> -		.capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR,
>> -		ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A73),
>> -		.enable = enable_psci_bp_hardening,
>> -	},
>> -	{
>> -		.capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR,
>> -		ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A75),
>> +		ERRATA_MIDR_RANGE_LIST(cortex_bp_harden_cpus),
> 
> Could we just use a macro to generate multiple structs, instead of
> inventing a new type of struct?

We could. Somehow, I don't think we are over engineering much here.

Cheers
Suzuki