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: <20210218152618.GA91307@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Date:   Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:26:18 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Mohamed Mediouni <mohamed.mediouni@...amail.com>,
        Stan Skowronek <stan@...ellium.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/25] arm64: Always keep DAIF.[IF] in sync

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:42:01PM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:
> On 18/02/2021 23.22, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I think that for consistency we always want to keep IRQ and FIQ in-sync,
> > even when using GIC priorities. So when handling a pseudo-NMI we should
> > unmask DAIF.DA and leave DAIF.IF masked.
> 
> In that case there's one more, in daifflags.h:local_daif_restore():
> 
> 			/*
> 			 * If interrupts are disabled but we can take
> 			 * asynchronous errors, we can take NMIs
> 			 */
> 			flags &= PSR_I_BIT;
> 			pmr = GIC_PRIO_IRQOFF;

Good spot, yes!

I did a quick scan with `git grep 'PSR_[IF]_BIT' -- arch/arm64`, and
AFAICT that's the last one.

> > > And a minor related one: should init_gic_priority_masking() WARN if FIQ is
> > > masked too? This probably goes with the above.
> > 
> > I think it should, yes.
> 
> Done for v3 then. Thanks!

Cool!

Mark.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ