- 27 3月, 2018 19 次提交
-
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap. This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations of a capability by maintaining list of matches + cpu_enable callbacks. To avoid complicating the prototypes for the "matches()", we use arm64_cpu_capabilities maintain the list and we ignore all the other fields except the matches & cpu_enable. This ensures : 1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects 2) Action is only taken for the entries that "matches". This avoids explicit checks in the cpu_enable() take some action. The only constraint here is that, all the entries should have the same "type" (i.e, scope and conflict rules). If a cpu_enable() method is associated with multiple matches for a single capability, care should be taken that either the match criteria are mutually exclusive, or that the method is robust against being called multiple times. This also reverts the changes introduced by commit 67948af4 ("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a capability"). Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Add helpers for detecting an errata on list of midr ranges of affected CPUs, with the same work around. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Add helpers for checking if the given CPU midr falls in a range of variants/revisions for a given model. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
We are about to introduce generic MIDR range helpers. Clean up the existing helpers in erratum handling, preparing them to use generic version. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
We expect all CPUs to be running at the same EL inside the kernel with or without VHE enabled and we have strict checks to ensure that any mismatch triggers a kernel panic. If VHE is enabled, we use the feature based on the boot CPU and all other CPUs should follow. This makes it a perfect candidate for a capability based on the boot CPU, which should be matched by all the CPUs (both when is ON and OFF). This saves us some not-so-pretty hooks and special code, just for verifying the conflict. The patch also makes the VHE capability entry depend on CONFIG_ARM64_VHE. Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
The kernel detects and uses some of the features based on the boot CPU and expects that all the following CPUs conform to it. e.g, with VHE and the boot CPU running at EL2, the kernel decides to keep the kernel running at EL2. If another CPU is brought up without this capability, we use custom hooks (via check_early_cpu_features()) to handle it. To handle such capabilities add support for detecting and enabling capabilities based on the boot CPU. A bit is added to indicate if the capability should be detected early on the boot CPU. The infrastructure then ensures that such capabilities are probed and "enabled" early on in the boot CPU and, enabled on the subsequent CPUs. Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
KPTI is treated as a system wide feature and is only detected if all the CPUs in the sysetm needs the defense, unless it is forced via kernel command line. This leaves a system with a mix of CPUs with and without the defense vulnerable. Also, if a late CPU needs KPTI but KPTI was not activated at boot time, the CPU is currently allowed to boot, which is a potential security vulnerability. This patch ensures that the KPTI is turned on if at least one CPU detects the capability (i.e, change scope to SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU). Also rejetcs a late CPU, if it requires the defense, when the system hasn't enabled it, Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Now that we have the flexibility of defining system features based on individual CPUs, introduce CPU feature type that can be detected on a local SCOPE and ignores the conflict on late CPUs. This is applicable for ARM64_HAS_NO_HW_PREFETCH, where it is fine for the system to have CPUs without hardware prefetch turning up later. We only suffer a performance penalty, nothing fatal. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Now that the features and errata workarounds have the same rules and flow, group the handling of the tables. Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
So far we have treated the feature capabilities as system wide and this wouldn't help with features that could be detected locally on one or more CPUs (e.g, KPTI, Software prefetch). This patch splits the feature detection to two phases : 1) Local CPU features are checked on all boot time active CPUs. 2) System wide features are checked only once after all CPUs are active. Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Right now we run through the errata workarounds check on all boot active CPUs, with SCOPE_ALL. This wouldn't help for detecting erratum workarounds with a SYSTEM_SCOPE. There are none yet, but we plan to introduce some: let us clean this up so that such workarounds can be detected and enabled correctly. So, we run the checks with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU on all CPUs and SCOPE_SYSTEM checks are run only once after all the boot time CPUs are active. Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
We are about to group the handling of all capabilities (features and errata workarounds). This patch open codes the wrapper routines to make it easier to merge the handling. Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
While processing the list of capabilities, it is useful to filter out some of the entries based on the given mask for the scope of the capabilities to allow better control. This can be used later for handling LOCAL vs SYSTEM wide capabilities and more. All capabilities should have their scope set to either LOCAL_CPU or SYSTEM. No functional/flow change. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Now that each capability describes how to treat the conflicts of CPU cap state vs System wide cap state, we can unify the verification logic to a single place. Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | |-----------------------------| | a | y | n | |-----------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled. ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability. Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
We have errata work around processing code in cpu_errata.c, which calls back into helpers defined in cpufeature.c. Now that we are going to make the handling of capabilities generic, by adding the information to each capability, move the errata work around specific processing code. No functional changes. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
We trigger CPU errata work around check on the boot CPU from smp_prepare_boot_cpu() to make sure that we run the checks only after the CPU feature infrastructure is initialised. While this is correct, we can also do this from init_cpu_features() which initilises the infrastructure, and is called only on the Boot CPU. This helps to consolidate the CPU capability handling to cpufeature.c. No functional changes. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Dave Martin 提交于
We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"), there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single capability. Clean up the declaration of the call back to make it clear. 1) Renamed to cpu_enable(), to imply taking necessary actions on the called CPU for the entry. 2) Pass const pointer to the capability, to allow the call back to check the entry. (e.,g to check if any action is needed on the CPU) 3) We don't care about the result of the call back, turning this to a void. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Acked-by: NRobin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NJulien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> [suzuki: convert more users, rename call back and drop results] Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 20 3月, 2018 3 次提交
-
-
由 Dave Martin 提交于
Currently a SIGFPE delivered in response to a floating-point exception trap may have si_code set to 0 on arm64. As reported by Eric, this is a bad idea since this is the value of SI_USER -- yet this signal is definitely not the result of kill(2), tgkill(2) etc. and si_uid and si_pid make limited sense whereas we do want to yield a value for si_addr (which doesn't exist for SI_USER). It's not entirely clear whether the architecure permits a "spurious" fp exception trap where none of the exception flag bits in ESR_ELx is set. (IMHO the architectural intent is to forbid this.) However, it does permit those bits to contain garbage if the TFV bit in ESR_ELx is 0. That case isn't currently handled at all and may result in si_code == 0 or si_code containing a FPE_FLT* constant corresponding to an exception that did not in fact happen. There is nothing sensible we can return for si_code in such cases, but SI_USER is certainly not appropriate and will lead to violation of legitimate userspace assumptions. This patch allocates a new si_code value FPE_UNKNOWN that at least does not conflict with any existing SI_* or FPE_* code, and yields this in si_code for undiagnosable cases. This is probably the best simplicity/incorrectness tradeoff achieveable without relying on implementation-dependent features or adding a lot of code. In any case, there appears to be no perfect solution possible that would justify a lot of effort here. Yielding FPE_UNKNOWN when some well-defined fp exception caused the trap is a violation of POSIX, but this is forced by the architecture. We have no realistic prospect of yielding the correct code in such cases. At present I am not aware of any ARMv8 implementation that supports trapped floating-point exceptions in any case. The new code may be applicable to other architectures for similar reasons. No attempt is made to provide ESR_ELx to userspace in the signal frame, since architectural limitations mean that it is unlikely to provide much diagnostic value, doesn't benefit existing software and would create ABI with no proven purpose. The existing mechanism for passing it also has problems of its own which may result in the wrong value being passed to userspace due to interaction with mm faults. The implied rework does not appear justified. Acked-by: N"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Reported-by: N"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Signed-off-by: NDave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于
Expose the new features introduced by Arm v8.4 extensions to Arm v8-A profile. These include : 1) Data indpendent timing of instructions. (DIT, exposed as HWCAP_DIT) 2) Unaligned atomic instructions and Single-copy atomicity of loads and stores. (AT, expose as HWCAP_USCAT) 3) LDAPR and STLR instructions with immediate offsets (extension to LRCPC, exposed as HWCAP_ILRCPC) 4) Flag manipulation instructions (TS, exposed as HWCAP_FLAGM). Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Arnd Bergmann 提交于
The printk symbol was intended as a generic address that is always exported, however that turned out to be false with CONFIG_PRINTK=n: ERROR: "printk" [arch/arm64/kernel/arm64-reloc-test.ko] undefined! This changes the references to memstart_addr, which should be there regardless of configuration. Fixes: a257e025 ("arm64/kernel: don't ban ADRP to work around Cortex-A53 erratum #843419") Acked-by: NArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: NArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 09 3月, 2018 5 次提交
-
-
由 Dave Martin 提交于
Currently, as reported by Eric, an invalid si_code value 0 is passed in many signals delivered to userspace in response to faults and other kernel errors. Typically 0 is passed when the fault is insufficiently diagnosable or when there does not appear to be any sensible alternative value to choose. This appears to violate POSIX, and is intuitively wrong for at least two reasons arising from the fact that 0 == SI_USER: 1) si_code is a union selector, and SI_USER (and si_code <= 0 in general) implies the existence of a different set of fields (siginfo._kill) from that which exists for a fault signal (siginfo._sigfault). However, the code raising the signal typically writes only the _sigfault fields, and the _kill fields make no sense in this case. Thus when userspace sees si_code == 0 (SI_USER) it may legitimately inspect fields in the inactive union member _kill and obtain garbage as a result. There appears to be software in the wild relying on this, albeit generally only for printing diagnostic messages. 2) Software that wants to be robust against spurious signals may discard signals where si_code == SI_USER (or <= 0), or may filter such signals based on the si_uid and si_pid fields of siginfo._sigkill. In the case of fault signals, this means that important (and usually fatal) error conditions may be silently ignored. In practice, many of the faults for which arm64 passes si_code == 0 are undiagnosable conditions such as exceptions with syndrome values in ESR_ELx to which the architecture does not yet assign any meaning, or conditions indicative of a bug or error in the kernel or system and thus that are unrecoverable and should never occur in normal operation. The approach taken in this patch is to translate all such undiagnosable or "impossible" synchronous fault conditions to SIGKILL, since these are at least probably localisable to a single process. Some of these conditions should really result in a kernel panic, but due to the lack of diagnostic information it is difficult to be certain: this patch does not add any calls to panic(), but this could change later if justified. Although si_code will not reach userspace in the case of SIGKILL, it is still desirable to pass a nonzero value so that the common siginfo handling code can detect incorrect use of si_code == 0 without false positives. In this case the si_code dependent siginfo fields will not be correctly initialised, but since they are not passed to userspace I deem this not to matter. A few faults can reasonably occur in realistic userspace scenarios, and _should_ raise a regular, handleable (but perhaps not ignorable/blockable) signal: for these, this patch attempts to choose a suitable standard si_code value for the raised signal in each case instead of 0. arm64 was the only arch to define a BUS_FIXME code, so after this patch nobody defines it. This patch therefore also removes the relevant code from siginfo_layout(). Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Reported-by: NEric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> Signed-off-by: NDave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Shanker Donthineni 提交于
The DCache clean & ICache invalidation requirements for instructions to be data coherence are discoverable through new fields in CTR_EL0. The following two control bits DIC and IDC were defined for this purpose. No need to perform point of unification cache maintenance operations from software on systems where CPU caches are transparent. This patch optimize the three functions __flush_cache_user_range(), clean_dcache_area_pou() and invalidate_icache_range() if the hardware reports CTR_EL0.IDC and/or CTR_EL0.IDC. Basically it skips the two instructions 'DC CVAU' and 'IC IVAU', and the associated loop logic in order to avoid the unnecessary overhead. CTR_EL0.DIC: Instruction cache invalidation requirements for instruction to data coherence. The meaning of this bit[29]. 0: Instruction cache invalidation to the point of unification is required for instruction to data coherence. 1: Instruction cache cleaning to the point of unification is not required for instruction to data coherence. CTR_EL0.IDC: Data cache clean requirements for instruction to data coherence. The meaning of this bit[28]. 0: Data cache clean to the point of unification is required for instruction to data coherence, unless CLIDR_EL1.LoC == 0b000 or (CLIDR_EL1.LoUIS == 0b000 && CLIDR_EL1.LoUU == 0b000). 1: Data cache clean to the point of unification is not required for instruction to data coherence. Co-authored-by: NPhilip Elcan <pelcan@codeaurora.org> Reviewed-by: NMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NShanker Donthineni <shankerd@codeaurora.org> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Ard Biesheuvel 提交于
Omit patching of ADRP instruction at module load time if the current CPUs are not susceptible to the erratum. Signed-off-by: NArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> [will: Drop duplicate initialisation of .def_scope field] Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Ard Biesheuvel 提交于
In some cases, core variants that are affected by a certain erratum also exist in versions that have the erratum fixed, and this fact is recorded in a dedicated bit in system register REVIDR_EL1. Since the architecture does not require that a certain bit retains its meaning across different variants of the same model, each such REVIDR bit is tightly coupled to a certain revision/variant value, and so we need a list of revidr_mask/midr pairs to carry this information. So add the struct member and the associated macros and handling to allow REVIDR fixes to be taken into account. Signed-off-by: NArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Ard Biesheuvel 提交于
Working around Cortex-A53 erratum #843419 involves special handling of ADRP instructions that end up in the last two instruction slots of a 4k page, or whose output register gets overwritten without having been read. (Note that the latter instruction sequence is never emitted by a properly functioning compiler, which is why it is disregarded by the handling of the same erratum in the bfd.ld linker which we rely on for the core kernel) Normally, this gets taken care of by the linker, which can spot such sequences at final link time, and insert a veneer if the ADRP ends up at a vulnerable offset. However, linux kernel modules are partially linked ELF objects, and so there is no 'final link time' other than the runtime loading of the module, at which time all the static relocations are resolved. For this reason, we have implemented the #843419 workaround for modules by avoiding ADRP instructions altogether, by using the large C model, and by passing -mpc-relative-literal-loads to recent versions of GCC that may emit adrp/ldr pairs to perform literal loads. However, this workaround forces us to keep literal data mixed with the instructions in the executable .text segment, and literal data may inadvertently turn into an exploitable speculative gadget depending on the relative offsets of arbitrary symbols. So let's reimplement this workaround in a way that allows us to switch back to the small C model, and to drop the -mpc-relative-literal-loads GCC switch, by patching affected ADRP instructions at runtime: - ADRP instructions that do not appear at 4k relative offset 0xff8 or 0xffc are ignored - ADRP instructions that are within 1 MB of their target symbol are converted into ADR instructions - remaining ADRP instructions are redirected via a veneer that performs the load using an unaffected movn/movk sequence. Signed-off-by: NArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> [will: tidied up ADRP -> ADR instruction patching.] [will: use ULL suffix for 64-bit immediate] Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 08 3月, 2018 2 次提交
-
-
由 Ard Biesheuvel 提交于
We currently have to rely on the GCC large code model for KASLR for two distinct but related reasons: - if we enable full randomization, modules will be loaded very far away from the core kernel, where they are out of range for ADRP instructions, - even without full randomization, the fact that the 128 MB module region is now no longer fully reserved for kernel modules means that there is a very low likelihood that the normal bottom-up allocation of other vmalloc regions may collide, and use up the range for other things. Large model code is suboptimal, given that each symbol reference involves a literal load that goes through the D-cache, reducing cache utilization. But more importantly, literals are not instructions but part of .text nonetheless, and hence mapped with executable permissions. So let's get rid of our dependency on the large model for KASLR, by: - reducing the full randomization range to 4 GB, thereby ensuring that ADRP references between modules and the kernel are always in range, - reduce the spillover range to 4 GB as well, so that we fallback to a region that is still guaranteed to be in range - move the randomization window of the core kernel to the middle of the VMALLOC space Note that KASAN always uses the module region outside of the vmalloc space, so keep the kernel close to that if KASAN is enabled. Signed-off-by: NArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Ard Biesheuvel 提交于
When PLTs are emitted at relocation time, we really should not exceed the number that we counted when parsing the relocation tables, and so currently, we BUG() on this condition. However, even though this is a clear bug in this particular piece of code, we can easily recover by failing to load the module. So instead, return 0 from module_emit_plt_entry() if this condition occurs, which is not a valid kernel address, and can hence serve as a flag value that makes the relocation routine bail out. Signed-off-by: NArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 07 3月, 2018 9 次提交
-
-
由 Douglas Anderson 提交于
This is the equivalent of commit 001bf455 ("ARM: 8428/1: kgdb: Fix registers on sleeping tasks") but for arm64. Nuff said. ...well, perhaps I could also add that task_pt_regs are userspace registers and that's not what kgdb is supposed to be reporting. We're supposed to be reporting kernel registers. Signed-off-by: NDouglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Catalin Marinas 提交于
Commit 97303480 ("arm64: Increase the max granular size") increased the cache line size to 128 to match Cavium ThunderX, apparently for some performance benefit which could not be confirmed. This change, however, has an impact on the network packets allocation in certain circumstances, requiring slightly over a 4K page with a significant performance degradation. This patch reverts L1_CACHE_SHIFT back to 6 (64-byte cache line) while keeping ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN at 128. The cache_line_size() function was changed to default to ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN in the absence of a meaningful CTR_EL0.CWG bit field. In addition, if a system with ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN < CTR_EL0.CWG is detected, the kernel will force swiotlb bounce buffering for all non-coherent devices since DMA cache maintenance on sub-CWG ranges is not safe, leading to data corruption. Cc: Tirumalesh Chalamarla <tchalamarla@cavium.com> Cc: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> Acked-by: NRobin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Will Deacon 提交于
Using arm64_force_sig_info means that printing messages about unhandled signals is dealt with for us, so use that in preference to force_sig_info and remove any homebrew printing code. Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Will Deacon 提交于
show_unhandled_signals_ratelimited is only called in traps.c, so move it out of its macro in the dreaded system_misc.h and into a static function in traps.c Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Will Deacon 提交于
If we fail to deliver a signal due to taking an unhandled fault on the stackframe, we can call arm64_notify_segfault to deliver a SEGV can deal with printing any unhandled signal messages for us, rather than roll our own printing code. A side-effect of this change is that we now deliver the frame address in si_addr along with an si_code of SEGV_{ACC,MAP}ERR, rather than an si_addr of 0 and an si_code of SI_KERNEL as before. Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Will Deacon 提交于
arm64_notify_die deals with printing out information regarding unhandled signals, so there's no need to roll our own code here. Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Will Deacon 提交于
In preparation for consolidating our handling of printing unhandled signals, introduce a wrapper around force_sig_info which can act as the canonical place for dealing with show_unhandled_signals. Initially, we just hook this up to arm64_notify_die. Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Will Deacon 提交于
For signals other than SIGKILL or those with siginfo_layout(signal, code) == SIL_FAULT then force_signal_inject does not initialise the siginfo_t properly. Since the signal number is determined solely by the caller, simply WARN on unknown signals and force to SIGKILL. Reported-by: NDave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Will Deacon 提交于
force_signal_inject is a little flakey: * It only knows about SIGILL and SIGSEGV, so can potentially deliver other signals based on a partially initialised siginfo_t * It sets si_addr to point at the PC for SIGSEGV * It always operates on current, so doesn't need the regs argument This patch fixes these issues by always assigning the si_addr field to the address parameter of the function and updates the callers (including those that indirectly call via arm64_notify_segfault) accordingly. Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 05 3月, 2018 2 次提交
-
-
由 Kees Cook 提交于
The word "feature" is repeated in the CPU features reporting. This drops it for improved readability. Before (redundant "feature" word): SMP: Total of 4 processors activated. CPU features: detected feature: 32-bit EL0 Support CPU features: detected feature: Kernel page table isolation (KPTI) CPU features: emulated: Privileged Access Never (PAN) using TTBR0_EL1 switching CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL2 After: SMP: Total of 4 processors activated. CPU features: detected: 32-bit EL0 Support CPU features: detected: Kernel page table isolation (KPTI) CPU features: emulated: Privileged Access Never (PAN) using TTBR0_EL1 switching CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL2 Signed-off-by: NKees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Acked-by: NMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
由 Kees Cook 提交于
The PAN emulation notification was only happening for non-boot CPUs if CPU capabilities had already been configured. This seems to be the wrong place, as it's system-wide and isn't attached to capabilities, so its reporting didn't normally happen. Instead, report it once from the boot CPU. Before (missing PAN emulation report): SMP: Total of 4 processors activated. CPU features: detected feature: 32-bit EL0 Support CPU features: detected feature: Kernel page table isolation (KPTI) CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL2 After: SMP: Total of 4 processors activated. CPU features: detected feature: 32-bit EL0 Support CPU features: detected feature: Kernel page table isolation (KPTI) CPU features: emulated: Privileged Access Never (PAN) using TTBR0_EL1 switching CPU: All CPU(s) started at EL2 Signed-off-by: NKees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Acked-by: NMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-