linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] arm64: Add BBM Level 2 cpu feature

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: <e0a6308f-5628-4698-95a7-ec1b918358b0@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:25:56 +0000
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Mikołaj Lenczewski <miko.lenczewski@....com>,
 yang@...amperecomputing.com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
 joey.gouly@....com, broonie@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
 james.morse@....com, yangyicong@...ilicon.com, anshuman.khandual@....com,
 maz@...nel.org, liaochang1@...wei.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 david@...hat.com, baohua@...nel.org, ioworker0@...il.com,
 oliver.upton@...ux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] arm64: Add BBM Level 2 cpu feature

On 2025-02-19 3:43 pm, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 19/02/2025 15:39, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> Hi Miko,
>>
>> On 2025-02-19 2:38 pm, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
>>> The Break-Before-Make cpu feature supports multiple levels (levels 0-2),
>>> and this commit adds a dedicated BBML2 cpufeature to test against
>>> support for.
>>>
>>> This is a system feature as we might have a big.LITTLE architecture
>>> where some cores support BBML2 and some don't, but we want all cores to
>>> be available and BBM to default to level 0 (as opposed to having cores
>>> without BBML2 not coming online).
>>>
>>> To support BBML2 in as wide a range of contexts as we can, we want not
>>> only the architectural guarantees that BBML2 makes, but additionally
>>> want BBML2 to not create TLB conflict aborts. Not causing aborts avoids
>>> us having to prove that no recursive faults can be induced in any path
>>> that uses BBML2, allowing its use for arbitrary kernel mappings.
>>> Support detection of such CPUs.
>>
>> If this may be used for splitting/compacting userspace mappings, then similarly
>> to 6e192214c6c8 ("iommu/arm-smmu-v3: Document SVA interaction with new pagetable
>> features"), strictly we'll also want a check in arm_smmu_sva_supported() to make
>> sure that the SMMU is OK with BBML2 behaviour too, and disallow SVA if not. Note
>> that the corresponding SMMUv3.2-BBML2 feature is already strict about TLB
>> conflict aborts, so is comparatively nice and straightforward.
> 
> Thanks for catching this, Robin, as I completely forgot to pass this onto Miko
> yesterday after our conversation. I suggest we tack a commit on to the end of
> this series to cover that?
> 
> I think that strictly this is not needed for Yang's series since that only uses
> BBML2 for kernel mappings, and those pgtables would never be directly shared
> with the SMMU.

Yup, it's really more just a theoretical correctness concern - certainly 
Arm's implementations from MMU-700 onwards do support BBML2, while 
MMU-600 is now sufficiently old that nobody is likely to pair it with 
new BBML-capable CPUs anyway - so it's just to cover the gap that in 
principle there may be 3rd-party implementations which might get confused.

Cheers,
Robin.