linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 16/16] arm64: Add ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND

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:   Fri, 2 Feb 2018 11:43:49 +0800
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
CC:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        kvmarm <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
        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>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/16] arm64: Add ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 BP
 hardening support

On 2018/2/1 16:53, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
>>>> ... and actually, perhaps it makes sense for the
>>>> SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 check to be completely independent of MIDR
>>>> based errata matching?
>>>>
>>>> I.e., if SMCCC v1.1 and SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 are both implemented,
>>>> we should probably invoke it even if the MIDR is not known to belong
>>>> to an affected implementation.
>>>
>>> This would have an impact on big-little systems, for which there is
>>> often a bunch of unaffected CPUs.
>>
>> I think it's what we are doing now, SMCCC v1.1 didn't provide the ability
>> to report per-cpu SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, and it said:
>>  - The discovery call must return the same result on all PEs in the system.
>>  - In heterogeneous systems with some PEs that require mitigation and others
>>    that do not, the firmware must provide a safe implementation of this
>>    function on all PEs.
>>
>> So from the spec that it's the firmware to take care of unaffected CPUs,
>> to the kernel it's the same.
> 
> The spec makes it safe. The MIDR list makes it fast.

Got it, thank you for clarifying this.

Thanks
Hanjun