linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 14/36] KVM: arm64: Provide __flush_dcache

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: <YE+RtegUL4ki2qa/@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:56:21 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, maz@...nel.org, james.morse@....com,
        julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
        android-kvm@...gle.com, seanjc@...gle.com, mate.toth-pal@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, tabba@...gle.com, ardb@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, dbrazdil@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/36] KVM: arm64: Provide __flush_dcache_area at EL2

On Monday 15 Mar 2021 at 16:33:23 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 02:35:14PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > We will need to do cache maintenance at EL2 soon, so compile a copy of
> > __flush_dcache_area at EL2, and provide a copy of arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0
> > as it is needed by the read_ctr macro.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_cpufeature.h |  2 ++
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/Makefile        |  3 ++-
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/cache.S         | 13 +++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c               |  1 +
> >  4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/cache.S
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_cpufeature.h
> > index 3fd9f60d2180..efba1b89b8a4 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_cpufeature.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_cpufeature.h
> > @@ -13,3 +13,5 @@
> >  #define KVM_HYP_CPU_FTR_REG(name) extern struct arm64_ftr_reg kvm_nvhe_sym(name)
> >  #endif
> >  #endif
> > +
> > +KVM_HYP_CPU_FTR_REG(arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0);
> 
> I still think this is a bit weird. If you really want to macro-ise stuff,
> then why not follow the sort of thing we do for e.g. per-cpu variables and
> have separate DECLARE_HYP_CPU_FTR_REG and DEFINE_HYP_CPU_FTR_REG macros.
> 
> That way kvm_cpufeature.h can have header guards like a normal header and
> we can drop the '#ifndef KVM_HYP_CPU_FTR_REG' altogether. I don't think
> the duplication of the symbol name really matters -- it should fail at
> build time if something is missing.

I just tend to hate unnecessary boilerplate, but if you feel strongly
about it, happy to change :)

Cheers,
Quentin