[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <476d111e-6fb0-9bef-2448-a94d0cc03f45@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 21:56:10 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>
CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
"Christoffer Dall" <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Robin Murphy" <robin.murphy@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/16] arm64: Add ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 BP
hardening support
Hi Marc,
On 2018/1/30 1:45, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 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;
If I'm using the new version SMCCC, the firmware have the choice to decide
whether this machine needs the workaround, even if the CPU is vulnerable
for CVE-2017-5715, but..
> +
> install_bp_hardening_cb(entry,
> (bp_hardening_cb_t)psci_ops.get_version,
> __psci_hyp_bp_inval_start,
> __psci_hyp_bp_inval_end);
..the code above seems will enable get_psci_version() for CPU and will
trap to trust firmware even the new version of firmware didn't say
we need the workaround, did I understand it correctly?
I'm ask this because some platform will not expose to users to
take advantage of CVE-2017-5715, and we can use different firmware
to report we need such workaround or not, then use a single kernel
image for both vulnerable platforms and no vulnerable ones.
Thanks
Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists