linux-kernel - Re: Relax CPU features sanity checking on heterogeneous architectures

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a6987e0c5a1c986a962fec282dac690d@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:17:17 +0530
From:   Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        catalin.marinas@....com
Cc:     suzuki.poulose@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        jeremy.linton@....com, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, andrew.murray@....com,
        will@...nel.org, Dave.Martin@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: Relax CPU features sanity checking on heterogeneous architectures

Hi Mark,

On 2019-10-11 19:24, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 02:33:43PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:50:11 +0100
>> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:19:00AM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> > > On latest QCOM SoCs like SM8150 and SC7180 with big.LITTLE arch, below
>> > > warnings are observed during bootup of big cpu cores.
>> >
>> > For reference, which CPUs are in those SoCs?
>> >
>> > > SM8150:
>> > >
>> > > [    0.271177] CPU features: SANITY CHECK: Unexpected variation in
>> > > SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1. Boot CPU: 0x00000011112222, CPU4: 0x00000011111112
>> >
>> > The differing fields are EL3, EL2, and EL1: the boot CPU supports
>> > AArch64 and AArch32 at those exception levels, while the secondary only
>> > supports AArch64.
>> >
>> > Do we handle this variation in KVM?
>> 
>> We do, at least at vcpu creation time (see kvm_reset_vcpu). But if one
>> of the !AArch32 CPU comes in late in the game (after we've started a
>> guest), all bets are off (we'll schedule the 32bit guest on that CPU,
>> enter the guest, immediately take an Illegal Exception Return, and
>> return to userspace with KVM_EXIT_FAIL_ENTRY).
> 
> Ouch. We certainly can't remove the warning untill we deal with that
> somehow, then.
> 
>> Not sure we could do better, given the HW. My preference would be to
>> fail these CPUs if they aren't present at boot time.
> 
> I agree; I think we need logic to check the ID register fields against
> their EXACT, {LOWER,HIGHER}_SAFE, etc rules regardless of whether we
> have an associated cap. That can then abort a late onlining of a CPU
> which violates those rules w.r.t. the finalised system value.
> 
> I suspect that we may want to split the notion of
> safe-for-{user,kernel-guest} in the feature tables, as if nothing else
> it will force us to consider those cases separately when adding new
> stuff.
> 

I can help with testing these if you have any sample patches.

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation