linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: KASLR: Fix sync_icache() trapped in loop when synci

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: <b6e97d2f-6d5a-1dbb-3701-b238709b7345@flygoat.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:02:10 +0800
From:   Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
To:     Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: KASLR: Fix sync_icache() trapped in loop when
 synci_step is zero



在 2020/12/2 下午6:39, Thomas Bogendoerfer 写道:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:00:05AM +0800, Jinyang He wrote:
>> Reading synci_step by using rdhwr instruction may return zero if no cache
>> need be synchronized. On the one hand, to make sure all load operation and
>> store operation finished we do __sync() for every platform. On the other
>> hand, some platform need operate synci one time although step is zero.
> Should this be someting like: Avoid endless loop, if no synci is needed ?
>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/relocate.c b/arch/mips/kernel/relocate.c
>> index 57bdd276..47aeb33 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/relocate.c
>> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/relocate.c
>> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static void __init sync_icache(void *kbase, unsigned long kernel_length)
>>   			: "r" (kbase));
>>   
>>   		kbase += step;
>> -	} while (kbase < kend);
>> +	} while (step && kbase < kend);
> why not do a
>
> 	if (step == 0)
> 		return;
>
> before entering the loop ? According to MIPS32PRA no synci is needed,
> if stepi value is zero.
>
> Thomas.
>
> PS: Does anybody know a reason, why this code doesn't use an old fashioned
> dache/icache flushing, which might be slower but would work also on
> legecy cores ?

I thought that's because legacy flush requires much more cares.
You'll have to probe cache ways sets and line size to do so.
However relocation happens very early, even before cache probe.

Thanks.

- Jiaxun