linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add overrride for MPAM

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: <92d0a120d3303243d7bd72188c4f5974f525975a.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 20:34:43 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>, James Morse
	 <james.morse@....com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shameer Kolothum
	 <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>, Mingcong Bai <jeffbai@...c.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add overrride for MPAM

On Tue, 2025-04-01 at 13:09 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 12:47:03 +0100,
> Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2025-04-01 at 14:04 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > On 4/1/25 11:26, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > > > As the message of the commit 09e6b306f3ba ("arm64: cpufeature: discover
> > > > CPU support for MPAM") already states, if a buggy firmware fails to
> > > > either enable MPAM or emulate the trap as if it were disabled, the
> > > > kernel will just fail to boot.  While upgrading the firmware should be
> > > > the best solution, we have some hardware of which the vender have made
> > > > no response 2 months after we requested a firmware update.  Allow
> > > > overriding it so our devices don't become some e-waste.
> > > 
> > > There could be similar problems, where firmware might not enable arch
> > > features as required. Just wondering if there is a platform policy in
> > > place for enabling id-reg overrides for working around such scenarios
> > > to prevent a kernel crash etc ?
> > 
> > In https://lore.kernel.org/all/87jzcfsuep.wl-maz@kernel.org/:
> > 
> >    > For such cases, when MPAM is incorrectly advertised, can we have kernel
> >    > command line parameter like mpam=0 to override it's detection?
> >    
> >    We could, but only when we can confirm what the problem is.
> > 
> > And there was prior arts like:
> > 
> > commit 892f7237b3ffb090f1b1f1e55fe7c50664405aed
> > Author: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> > Date:   Wed Jul 20 11:52:19 2022 +0100
> > 
> >     arm64: Delay initialisation of cpuinfo_arm64::reg_{zcr,smcr}
> >     
> >     Even if we are now able to tell the kernel to avoid exposing SVE/SME
> >     from the command line, we still have a couple of places where we
> >     unconditionally access the ZCR_EL1 (resp. SMCR_EL1) registers.
> >     
> >     On systems with broken firmwares, this results in a crash even if
> >     arm64.nosve (resp. arm64.nosme) was passed on the command-line.
> >     
> >     To avoid this, only update cpuinfo_arm64::reg_{zcr,smcr} once
> >     we have computed the sanitised version for the corresponding
> >     feature registers (ID_AA64PFR0 for SVE, and ID_AA64PFR1 for
> >     SME). This results in some minor refactoring.
> 
> That particular patch has caused quite a few issues, see d3c7c48d004f.
> So don't use it as a reference.
> 
> Now, while I think an option is probably acceptable in the face of an
> unresponsive vendor, I don't think the way you implement it is the
> correct approach.
> 
> It should be possible to handle the override in the assembly code,
> like we do for other bits and pieces, and deal with MPAMIDR_EL1 later
> down the line, once the sanitised ID registers are known to be valid.

Ok I'll try it.

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University