[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d1d7fd58-f7c6-c5e3-e5f3-618303d161d6@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:48:04 -0600
From: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, marc.zyngier@....com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, dave.martin@....com,
shankerd@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ykaukab@...e.de, mlangsdo@...hat.com, steven.price@....com,
stefan.wahren@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/12] arm64: add sysfs vulnerability show for meltdown
Hi,
On 01/31/2019 03:28 AM, Julien Thierry wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> On 25/01/2019 18:07, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> Display the mitigation status if active, otherwise
>> assume the cpu is safe unless it doesn't have CSV3
>> and isn't in our whitelist.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index a9e18b9cdc1e..624dfe0b5cdd 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -944,6 +944,8 @@ has_useable_cnp(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
>> return has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope);
>> }
>>
>> +/* default value is invalid until unmap_kernel_at_el0() runs */
>> +static bool __meltdown_safe = true;
>> static int __kpti_forced; /* 0: not forced, >0: forced on, <0: forced off */
>>
>> static bool unmap_kernel_at_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
>> @@ -962,6 +964,16 @@ static bool unmap_kernel_at_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
>> { /* sentinel */ }
>> };
>> char const *str = "command line option";
>> + bool meltdown_safe;
>> +
>> + meltdown_safe = is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), kpti_safe_list);
>> +
>> + /* Defer to CPU feature registers */
>> + if (has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope))
>> + meltdown_safe = true;
>
> Do we need to check the cpuid registers if the CPU is in the known safe
> list?
I don't believe so. In the previous patch where this was broken out
these checks were just or'ed together. In this path it just seemed a
little cleaner than adding the additional check/or'ing the results
here/whatever as we only want to set it safe (never the other way
around). AKA, i'm running out of horizontal space, and I want to keep
the 'defer to registers' comment.
>
> Otherwise:
>
> Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
>
>> +
>> + if (!meltdown_safe)
>> + __meltdown_safe = false;
>>
>> /*
>> * For reasons that aren't entirely clear, enabling KPTI on Cavium
>> @@ -984,12 +996,7 @@ static bool unmap_kernel_at_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE))
>> return kaslr_offset() > 0;
>>
>> - /* Don't force KPTI for CPUs that are not vulnerable */
>> - if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), kpti_safe_list))
>> - return false;
>> -
>> - /* Defer to CPU feature registers */
>> - return !has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope);
>> + return !meltdown_safe;
>> }
>>
>> static void
>> @@ -2055,3 +2062,17 @@ static int __init enable_mrs_emulation(void)
>> }
>>
>> core_initcall(enable_mrs_emulation);
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_CPU_VULNERABILITIES
>> +ssize_t cpu_show_meltdown(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>> + char *buf)
>> +{
>> + if (arm64_kernel_unmapped_at_el0())
>> + return sprintf(buf, "Mitigation: KPTI\n");
>> +
>> + if (__meltdown_safe)
>> + return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n");
>> +
>> + return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n");
>> +}
>> +#endif
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists