linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 02/16] arm64/cpufeature: Drop TraceFilt feature exposure from ID

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:   Tue, 5 May 2020 12:20:41 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 02/16] arm64/cpufeature: Drop TraceFilt feature
 exposure from ID_DFR0 register



On 05/05/2020 01:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 07:03:51PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> ID_DFR0 based TraceFilt feature should not be exposed to guests. Hence lets
>> drop it.
>>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>
>> Suggested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
>> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 -
>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 6d032fbe416f..51386dade423 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -435,7 +435,6 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_pfr1[] = {
>>  };
>>  
>>  static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_dfr0[] = {
>> -	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, 28, 4, 0),
> 
> Hmm, this still confuses me. Is this not now FTR_NONSTRICT? Why is that ok?

Mark had mentioned about it earlier (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11287805/)
Did I misinterpret the first part ? Could not figure "capping the emulated debug
features" part. Probably, Mark could give some more details.

>From the earlier discussion:

* ID_DFR0 fields need more thought; we should limit what we expose here.
  I don't think it's valid for us to expose TraceFilt, and I suspect we
  need to add capping for debug features we currently emulate.