linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] arm64: Use firmware to detect CPUs that are not affected by Spectre-v2

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, 1 Mar 2019 00:58:19 -0600
From:   Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....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, julien.thierry@....com,
        mlangsdo@...hat.com, stefan.wahren@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] arm64: Use firmware to detect CPUs that are not
 affected by Spectre-v2

Hi,

On 2/26/19 7:05 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> 
> The SMCCC ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 service can indicate that although the
> firmware knows about the Spectre-v2 mitigation, this particular
> CPU is not vulnerable, and it is thus not necessary to call
> the firmware on this CPU.
> 
> Let's use this information to our benefit.

Yes, that matches the firmware interface description.

> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>

Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>

Cheers,
Andre.

> ---
>   arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> index c8972255b365..77f021e78a28 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> @@ -230,22 +230,36 @@ static int detect_harden_bp_fw(void)
>   	case PSCI_CONDUIT_HVC:
>   		arm_smccc_1_1_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
>   				  ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, &res);
> -		if ((int)res.a0 < 0)
> +		switch ((int)res.a0) {
> +		case 1:
> +			/* Firmware says we're just fine */
> +			return 0;
> +		case 0:
> +			cb = call_hvc_arch_workaround_1;
> +			/* This is a guest, no need to patch KVM vectors */
> +			smccc_start = NULL;
> +			smccc_end = NULL;
> +			break;
> +		default:
>   			return -1;
> -		cb = call_hvc_arch_workaround_1;
> -		/* This is a guest, no need to patch KVM vectors */
> -		smccc_start = NULL;
> -		smccc_end = NULL;
> +		}
>   		break;
>   
>   	case PSCI_CONDUIT_SMC:
>   		arm_smccc_1_1_smc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
>   				  ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, &res);
> -		if ((int)res.a0 < 0)
> +		switch ((int)res.a0) {
> +		case 1:
> +			/* Firmware says we're just fine */
> +			return 0;
> +		case 0:
> +			cb = call_smc_arch_workaround_1;
> +			smccc_start = __smccc_workaround_1_smc_start;
> +			smccc_end = __smccc_workaround_1_smc_end;
> +			break;
> +		default:
>   			return -1;
> -		cb = call_smc_arch_workaround_1;
> -		smccc_start = __smccc_workaround_1_smc_start;
> -		smccc_end = __smccc_workaround_1_smc_end;
> +		}
>   		break;
>   
>   	default:
>