linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: booting.rst: Clarify EL2 and cover v8-R64

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <164493738020.3934087.8555074967425195921.b4-ty@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 23:18:20 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc:     kernel-team@...roid.com, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: booting.rst: Clarify EL2 and cover v8-R64

On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 16:00:54 +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> clarify the wording of the ARM64 boot protocol requirements, to both
> cater for the introduction of secure EL2 in Armv8.4, but also for the
> addition of the Armv8-R64 architecture branch.
> There is an ARM ARM supplement for v8-R64[1], and also a free model[2].
> 
> On top of those clarifications, there are at least two other issues to
> consider for v8-R64 on Linux, I wonder if those should be documented
> somewhere, although I doubt that booting.rst is the right place:
> - Linux clears the NS/NSTable bit in the PTEs. In non-secure world those
>   bits are ignored, but when in secure world this means "secure PA".
>   That luckily matches the design here (secure-only), but we should avoid
>   re-purposing those bits in the future (which would be technically
>   possible when running only non-secure).
> - The GIC needs to be implemented using a "single Security state" for
>   the Linux GIC driver to work. The model mentioned above defaults to
>   a security aware GIC, so needs to be told off using the command line.
>   I wonder if this is should be explicitly mentioned somewhere, to avoid
>   disappointment by implementors later.
> 
> [...]

Applied first patch to arm64 (for-next/docs), thanks!

[1/2] arm64: booting.rst: Clarify on requiring non-secure EL2
      https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/b8ac4ee08d48

Cheers,
-- 
Will

https://fixes.arm64.dev
https://next.arm64.dev
https://will.arm64.dev