| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a382200e-00c4-405a-a417-f4c09bd91fb7@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:02:42 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
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 12/10/24 22:11, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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.
I have updated the commit message regarding STRICT vs NONSTRICT as Mark had
mentioned earlier (see below). But just wondering about FTR_LOWER_SAFE. All
similar fields have been marked as FTR_LOWER_SAFE.
>
> For example, why is EBEP strict whereas other PMU-related fields aren't?
IIUC there are two types of fields here.
- Feature presence (EBEP, ITE, ABLE etc) ---> FTR_STRICT
- Debug resource count (WRPs, BRPs, CTX_CMPs etc) ---> FTR_NONSTRICT
> Why is the CTX_CMPs field treated differently to the same field in DFR0?
There is mismatch not only for CTX_CMPs but for WRPs and BRPs as well. As
mentioned earlier, being resource count type, I believe these should be
marked as FTR_NONSTRICT in existing DFR0 as well. I could send a patch
fixing DFR0 first.
>
> I'm not saying the above table is wrong, it just looks arbitrary without
> the justification.
Please find the updated version (v3) for this patch here for reference.
--------------
[PATCH] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register
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. The register fields have been marked as FTR_STRICT, unless there is
a known variation in practice.
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 6ce71f444ed8..0dc22fde104e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -534,6 +534,21 @@ 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_NONSTRICT, 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,
+};
+
static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_mvfr0[] = {
ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, MVFR0_EL1_FPRound_SHIFT, 4, 0),
ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, MVFR0_EL1_FPShVec_SHIFT, 4, 0),
@@ -720,10 +735,6 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_single32[] = {
ARM64_FTR_END,
};
-static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_raz[] = {
- ARM64_FTR_END,
-};
-
#define __ARM64_FTR_REG_OVERRIDE(id_str, id, table, ovr) { \
.sys_id = id, \
.reg = &(struct arm64_ftr_reg){ \
@@ -796,7 +807,7 @@ static const struct __ftr_reg_entry {
/* Op1 = 0, CRn = 0, CRm = 5 */
ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64dfr0),
- ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, ftr_raz),
+ ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, ftr_id_aa64dfr1),
/* Op1 = 0, CRn = 0, CRm = 6 */
ARM64_FTR_REG(SYS_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1, ftr_id_aa64isar0),
--
2.25.1
--------------
Changes in V3:
- Updated commit message regarding FTR_STRICT
- Updated ID_AA64DFR1_EL1.ABLE as FTR_NONSTRICT
Powered by blists - more mailing lists