linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 08/24] kvm: arm64: Add SMC handler in nVHE EL2

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]

Message-ID: <87a6v854x9.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:00:50 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Scull <ascull@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Walbran <qwandor@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/24] kvm: arm64: Add SMC handler in nVHE EL2

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:43:02 +0000,
David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> Add handler of host SMCs in KVM nVHE trap handler. Forward all SMCs to
> EL3 and propagate the result back to EL1. This is done in preparation
> for validating host SMCs in KVM nVHE protected mode.
> 
> The implementation assumes that firmware uses SMCCC v1.2 or older. That
> means x0-x17 can be used both for arguments and results, other GPRs are
> preserved.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-main.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> index ed27f06a31ba..52dae5cd5a28 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> @@ -183,3 +183,41 @@ SYM_CODE_START(__kvm_hyp_host_vector)
>  	invalid_host_el1_vect			// FIQ 32-bit EL1
>  	invalid_host_el1_vect			// Error 32-bit EL1
>  SYM_CODE_END(__kvm_hyp_host_vector)
> +
> +/*
> + * Forward SMC with arguments in struct kvm_cpu_context, and
> + * store the result into the same struct. Assumes SMCCC 1.2 or older.
> + *
> + * x0: struct kvm_cpu_context*
> + */
> +SYM_CODE_START(__kvm_hyp_host_forward_smc)
> +	/*
> +	 * Use x18 to keep a pointer to the host context because x18
> +	 * is callee-saved SMCCC but not in AAPCS64.
> +	 */
> +	mov	x18, x0
> +
> +	ldp	x0, x1,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
> +	ldp	x2, x3,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
> +	ldp	x4, x5,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
> +	ldp	x6, x7,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
> +	ldp	x8, x9,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
> +	ldp	x10, x11, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
> +	ldp	x12, x13, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
> +	ldp	x14, x15, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
> +	ldp	x16, x17, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]
> +
> +	smc	#0
> +
> +	stp	x0, x1,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
> +	stp	x2, x3,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
> +	stp	x4, x5,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
> +	stp	x6, x7,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
> +	stp	x8, x9,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
> +	stp	x10, x11, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
> +	stp	x12, x13, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
> +	stp	x14, x15, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
> +	stp	x16, x17, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]

This is going to be really good for CPUs that need to use ARCH_WA1 for
their Spectre-v2 mitigation... :-( If that's too expensive, we may
have to reduce the number of save/restored registers, but I'm worried
the battle is already lost by the time we reach this (the host trap
path is already a huge hammer).

Eventually, we'll have to insert the mitigation in the vectors anyway,
just like we have on the guest exit path. Boo.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.