linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] arm64: Force device mappings to be non-secure shared

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: <ZkR535Hmh3WkMYai@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 10:01:19 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>,
	Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>, linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@...amperecomputing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/14] arm64: Force device mappings to be non-secure
 shared

On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 09:42:09AM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> 
> Device mappings (currently) need to be emulated by the VMM so must be
> mapped shared with the host.

You say "currently". What's the plan when the device is not emulated?
How would the guest distinguish what's emulated and what's not to avoid
setting the PROT_NS_SHARED bit?

> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index f5376bd567a1..db71c564ec21 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ static inline void set_pud_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>  #define pgprot_writecombine(prot) \
>  	__pgprot_modify(prot, PTE_ATTRINDX_MASK, PTE_ATTRINDX(MT_NORMAL_NC) | PTE_PXN | PTE_UXN)
>  #define pgprot_device(prot) \
> -	__pgprot_modify(prot, PTE_ATTRINDX_MASK, PTE_ATTRINDX(MT_DEVICE_nGnRE) | PTE_PXN | PTE_UXN)
> +	__pgprot_modify(prot, PTE_ATTRINDX_MASK, PTE_ATTRINDX(MT_DEVICE_nGnRE) | PTE_PXN | PTE_UXN | PROT_NS_SHARED)

This pgprot_device() is not the only one used to map device resources.
pgprot_writecombine() is another commonly macro. It feels like a hack to
plug one but not the other and without any way for the guest to figure
out what's emulated.

Can the DT actually place those emulated ranges in the higher IPA space
so that we avoid randomly adding this attribute for devices?

-- 
Catalin