linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 02/43] arm64: RME: Handle Granule Protection Faults (GPFs)

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: <aLGRNc5u1EPlCpyb@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 12:38:29 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	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>,
	Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
	Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
	Alper Gun <alpergun@...gle.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
	Emi Kisanuki <fj0570is@...itsu.com>,
	Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 02/43] arm64: RME: Handle Granule Protection Faults
 (GPFs)

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 03:55:22PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> If the host attempts to access granules that have been delegated for use
> in a realm these accesses will be caught and will trigger a Granule
> Protection Fault (GPF).
> 
> A fault during a page walk signals a bug in the kernel and is handled by
> oopsing the kernel. A non-page walk fault could be caused by user space
> having access to a page which has been delegated to the kernel and will
> trigger a SIGBUS to allow debugging why user space is trying to access a
> delegated page.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
> ---
> Changes since v2:
>  * Include missing "Granule Protection Fault at level -1"
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index d816ff44faff..e4237637cd8f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -854,6 +854,25 @@ static int do_tag_check_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int do_gpf_ptw(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +	const struct fault_info *inf = esr_to_fault_info(esr);
> +
> +	die_kernel_fault(inf->name, far, esr, regs);
> +	return 0;
> +}

This is fine, it's irrelevant whether the fault happened at EL0 or EL1.

> +static int do_gpf(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +	const struct fault_info *inf = esr_to_fault_info(esr);
> +
> +	if (!is_el1_instruction_abort(esr) && fixup_exception(regs, esr))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	arm64_notify_die(inf->name, regs, inf->sig, inf->code, far, esr);
> +	return 0;
> +}

The end result is somewhat similar but why not just return 1 and avoid
the arm64_notify_die() call? Let do_mem_abort() handle the oops vs user
signal. With die_kernel_fault() we print the "Unable to handle
kernel..." message and some more information.

-- 
Catalin