linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 5/7] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1

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: <20241210164144.GA16039@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:41:44 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/7] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for
 ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 11:04:24AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> This adds required field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, and also drops dummy
> ftr_raz[] array which is now redundant. These register fields will be used
> to enable increased breakpoint and watchpoint registers via FEAT_Debugv8p9
> later.
> 
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 718728a85430..bd4d85f5dd92 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -530,6 +530,21 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
>  	ARM64_FTR_END,
>  };
>  
> +static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr1[] = {
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABL_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_DPFZS_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_EBEP_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ITE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_ABLE_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_PMICNTR_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SPMU_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_WRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_BRPs_SHIFT, 8, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR1_EL1_SYSPMUID_SHIFT, 8, 0),
> +	ARM64_FTR_END,
> +};

I think I mentioned this on an earlier series, but it would be useful to
see some justification in the commit message as to why some of these
features are considered STRICT vs NONSTRICT and why LOWER_SAFE is
preferred over EXACT.

For example, why is EBEP strict whereas other PMU-related fields aren't?
Why is the CTX_CMPs field treated differently to the same field in DFR0?

I'm not saying the above table is wrong, it just looks arbitrary without
the justification.

Will