| 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: <20190118141758.GC12256@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:17:59 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: "Zhang, Lei" <zhang.lei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "'catalin.marinas@....com'" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"'will.deacon@....com'" <will.deacon@....com>,
"'linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org'"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64 memory accesses may cause undefined fault on
Fujitsu-A64FX
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:52:38PM +0000, Zhang, Lei wrote:
> On some variants of the Fujitsu-A64FX cores ver(1.0, 1.1),
> memory accesses may cause undefined fault (Data abort, DFSC=0b111111).
So that we can better understand the problem, could you please let us
know the following:
* Under what conditions can the fault occur? e.g. is this in place of
some other fault, or completely spurious?
* Does this only occur for data abort? i.e. not instruction aborts?
* How often does this fault occur?
* Does this only apply to Stage-1, or can the same faults be taken at
Stage-2?
> This problem will be fixed by next version of Fujitsu-A64FX.
> I would like to post a workaround to avoid this problem
> on existing version.
> The workaround is to replace the fault handler for Data abort
> DFSC=0b111111 with a new one to ignore this undefined fault,
> which will only affect the Fujitsu-A64FX.
>
> I have tested this patch on A64FX and QEMU(2.9.0).The test passed.
> I will test this patch on ThunderX and report the result.
> I fully appreciate that if someone can test this patch on different
> chips to verity no harmful effect on other chips.
>
> If there is no problem on other chips, please merge this patch.
>
> Below is my patch based on linux-5.0-rc2.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lei Zhang <zhang.lei@...fujitsu.com>
> Tested-by: Lei Zhang <zhang.lei@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt | 1 +
> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 4 ++++
> arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt b/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt
> index 1f09d04..26d64e9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt
> @@ -80,3 +80,4 @@ stable kernels.
> | Qualcomm Tech. | Falkor v1 | E1009 | QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1009 |
> | Qualcomm Tech. | QDF2400 ITS | E0065 | QCOM_QDF2400_ERRATUM_0065 |
> | Qualcomm Tech. | Falkor v{1,2} | E1041 | QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1041 |
> +| Fujitsu | A64FX | E#010001 | FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001 |
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> index a4168d3..9c09b2b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> @@ -643,6 +643,19 @@ config QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_E1041
>
> If unsure, say Y.
>
> +config FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001
> + bool "Fujitsu-A64FX erratum E#010001: Undefined fault may occur wrongly"
> + default y
> + help
> + This option adds workaround for Fujitsu-A64FX erratum E#010001.
> + On some variants of the Fujitsu-A64FX cores ver(1.0, 1.1), memory accesses
> + may cause undefined fault (Data abort, DFSC=0b111111).
> + The workaround is to replace the fault handler for Data abort DFSC=0b111111
> + with a new one to ignore this undefined fault, which will only affect
> + the Fujitsu-A64FX.
> +
> + If unsure, say Y.
> +
> endmenu
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> index 951ed1a..166aa50 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@
> #define ARM_CPU_IMP_BRCM 0x42
> #define ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM 0x51
> #define ARM_CPU_IMP_NVIDIA 0x4E
> +#define ARM_CPU_IMP_FUJITSU 0x46
>
> #define ARM_CPU_PART_AEM_V8 0xD0F
> #define ARM_CPU_PART_FOUNDATION 0xD00
> @@ -104,6 +105,8 @@
> #define NVIDIA_CPU_PART_DENVER 0x003
> #define NVIDIA_CPU_PART_CARMEL 0x004
>
> +#define FUJTISU_CPU_PART_A64FX 0x001
> +
> #define MIDR_CORTEX_A53 MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM, ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A53)
> #define MIDR_CORTEX_A57 MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM, ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A57)
> #define MIDR_CORTEX_A72 MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_ARM, ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A72)
> @@ -122,6 +125,7 @@
> #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO)
> #define MIDR_NVIDIA_DENVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_NVIDIA, NVIDIA_CPU_PART_DENVER)
> #define MIDR_NVIDIA_CARMEL MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_NVIDIA, NVIDIA_CPU_PART_CARMEL)
> +#define MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_FUJITSU, FUJTISU_CPU_PART_A64FX)
>
> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index efb7b2c..c465b2f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -666,6 +666,25 @@ static int do_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static bool do_bad_ignore_first = FALSE;
> +static int do_bad_ignore(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + if (do_bad_ignore_first == TRUE)
> + return 0;
> + if (do_bad_ignore_first == FALSE) {
> + unsigned int current_cpu_midr = read_cpuid_id();
> + const struct midr_range fujitsu_a64fx_midr_range = {
> + MIDR_FUJITSU_A64FX, MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(0, 0), MIDR_CPU_VAR_REV(1, 0)
> + };
> +
> + if (is_midr_in_range(current_cpu_midr, &fujitsu_a64fx_midr_range) == TRUE) {
> + do_bad_ignore_first = TRUE;
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> + return 1; /* "fault" same as do_bad */
> +}
I'm a bit surprised by the single retry. Is there any guarantee that a
thread will eventually stop delivering this fault code?
Note that all CPUs and threads share the do_bad_ignore_first variable,
so this is going to behave non-deterministically and kill threads in
some cases.
This code is also preemptible, so checking the MIDR here doesn't make
much sense. Either this is always uniform (and we can check once in the
errata framework), or it's variable (e.g. on a big.LITTLE system) and we
need to avoid preemption up until this point.
Rather than dynamically checking the MIDR, this should use the errata
framework, and if any A64FX CPU is discovered, set an erratum cap like
ARM64_WORKAROUND_CONFIG_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001, so we can do something
like:
static int do_bad_unknown_63(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
/*
* On some variants of the Fujitsu-A64FX cores ver(1.0, 1.1),
* memory accesses may spuriously trigger data aborts with
* DFSC=0b111111.
*/
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001) &&
cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_E010001))
return 0;
return do_bad(addr, esr, regs);
}
> +
> static const struct fault_info fault_info[] = {
> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "ttbr address size fault" },
> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "level 1 address size fault" },
> @@ -730,7 +749,11 @@ static int do_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 60" },
> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "section domain fault" },
> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "page domain fault" },
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUJITSU_ERRATUM_010001
> + { do_bad_ignore, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 63" },
> +#else
> { do_bad, SIGKILL, SI_KERNEL, "unknown 63" },
> +#endif
... with this unconditionally using do_bad_unknown_63.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists