| 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: <d4ad5ade9815632f450374c9b6bbe9d2@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:04:59 +0530
From: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add KRYO4XX gold CPU core to spectre-v2 safe list
On 2020-08-13 23:29, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-08-13 13:33, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> On 2020-08-13 16:09, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 2020-08-13 10:40, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 02:49:37PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>>>> On 2020-08-13 14:33, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 01:48:34PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>>>>> > > KRYO4XX gold/big CPU cores are based on Cortex-A76 which has CSV2
>>>>> > > bits set and are spectre-v2 safe. But on big.LITTLE systems where
>>>>> > > they are coupled with other CPU cores such as the KRYO4XX silver
>>>>> > > based on Cortex-A55 which are spectre-v2 safe but do not have CSV2
>>>>> > > bits set, the system wide safe value will be set to the lowest value
>>>>> > > of CSV2 bits as per FTR_LOWER_SAFE defined for CSV2 bits of register
>>>>> > > ID_AA64PFR0_EL1.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > This is a problem when booting a guest kernel on gold CPU cores
>>>>> > > where it will incorrectly report ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 warning
>>>>> > > and consider them as vulnerable for Spectre variant 2 due to system
>>>>> > > wide safe value which is used in kvm emulation code when reading id
>>>>> > > registers. One wrong way of fixing this is to set the FTR_HIGHER_SAFE
>>>>> > > for CSV2 bits, so instead add the KRYO4XX gold CPU core to the safe
>>>>> > > list which will be consulted even when the sanitised read reports
>>>>> > > that CSV2 bits are not set for KRYO4XX gold cores.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Reported-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
>>>>> > > Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
>>>>> > > ---
>>>>> > > arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 1 +
>>>>> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
>>>>> > > b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
>>>>> > > index 6bd1d3ad037a..6cbdd2d98a2a 100644
>>>>> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
>>>>> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
>>>>> > > @@ -545,6 +545,7 @@ static const struct midr_range
>>>>> > > spectre_v2_safe_list[] = {
>>>>> > > MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_HISI_TSV110),
>>>>> > > MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_3XX_SILVER),
>>>>> > > MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_SILVER),
>>>>> > > + MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
>>>>> >
>>>>> > We shouldn't be putting CPUs in the safe list when they have CSV2
>>>>> > reporting
>>>>> > that they are mitigated in hardware, so I don't think this is the right
>>>>> > approach.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok but the only thing I find wrong in this approach is that it is a
>>>>> redundant
>>>>> information because CSV2 is already advertising the mitigation, but
>>>>> again
>>>>> CSV2 check is done first so it doesn't really hurt to add it to the
>>>>> safe
>>>>> list because we already know that it is safe.
>>>>
>>>> It simply doesn't scale. That's why CSV2 exists in the first place,
>>>> so we
>>>> don't have to modify the kernel everytime a new CPU is invented.
>>>>
>>>>> > Sounds more like KVM should advertise CSV2 for the vCPUs if all of the
>>>>> > physical CPUs without CSV2 set are on the safe list. But then again, KVM
>>>>> > has always been slightly in denial about big.LITTLE because you can't
>>>>> > sensibly expose it to a guest if there are detectable differences...
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry but I don't see how the guest kernel will see the CSV2 bits
>>>>> set for
>>>>> gold CPU cores without actually adding them to the safe list or
>>>>> reading the
>>>>> not sanitised value of ID_AA64PFR0_EL1 ?
>>>>
>>>> Well that's for somebody to figure out in the patch. I'm just saying
>>>> that
>>>> adding cores to the safe list when they already have a CSV2 field
>>>> conveying
>>>> the same information is the wrong approach. The right appproach is
>>>> for KVM
>>>> to expose CSV2 as set when the system is not affected by the
>>>> erratum.
>>>
>>> A sensible way to fix this would be with something like that:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>> index 077293b5115f..2735db21ff0d 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>> @@ -1131,6 +1131,9 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu
>>> *vcpu,
>>> if (!vcpu_has_sve(vcpu))
>>> val &= ~(0xfUL << ID_AA64PFR0_SVE_SHIFT);
>>> val &= ~(0xfUL << ID_AA64PFR0_AMU_SHIFT);
>>> + if (!(val & (0xfUL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV2_SHIFT)) &&
>>> + get_spectre_v2_workaround_state() ==
>>> ARM64_BP_HARDEN_NOT_REQUIRED)
>>> + val |= (1UL << ID_AA64PFR0_CSV2_SHIFT);
>>> } else if (id == SYS_ID_AA64ISAR1_EL1 && !vcpu_has_ptrauth(vcpu)) {
>>> val &= ~((0xfUL << ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_SHIFT) |
>>> (0xfUL << ID_AA64ISAR1_API_SHIFT) |
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Marc, I gave this a go on SC7180 where the issue was seen and
>> this fix is good.
>>
>> Tested-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>
>
> There is still a problem with this approach. A late CPU could
> come up after a guest has been started. If that CPU identified
> as vulnerable by the host kernel, get_spectre_v2_workaround_state()
> will return a different value, breaking the guest (or more
> likely, leaving it exposed to Spectre-v2 attacks).
>
> We'd need to disable the late onlining of CPUs that would change
> the mitigation state, and this is... ugly.
>
Ugh, yes indeed and here I was thinking that these things are
straightforward :(
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
Powered by blists - more mailing lists