Thread (51 messages) 51 messages, 9 authors, 2018-06-09

[PATCH v2 10/16] arm64: KVM: Report SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 BP hardening support

From: robin.murphy@arm.com (Robin Murphy)
Date: 2018-01-30 12:38:40
Also in: kvmarm, lkml

On 29/01/18 17:45, Marc Zyngier wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
A new feature of SMCCC 1.1 is that it offers firmware-based CPU
workarounds. In particular, SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 provides
BP hardening for CVE-2017-5715.

If the host has some mitigation for this issue, report that
we deal with it using SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1, as we apply the
host workaround on every guest exit.

Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <redacted>
---
  include/linux/arm-smccc.h |  5 +++++
  virt/kvm/arm/psci.c       | 17 +++++++++++++++--
  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
index dc68aa5a7261..e1ef944ef1da 100644
--- a/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
+++ b/include/linux/arm-smccc.h
@@ -73,6 +73,11 @@
  			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,				\
  			   0, 1)
  
+#define ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1					\
+	ARM_SMCCC_CALL_VAL(ARM_SMCCC_FAST_CALL,				\
+			   ARM_SMCCC_SMC_32,				\
+			   0, 0x8000)
+
  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
  
  #include <linux/linkage.h>
diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c b/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
index a021b62ed762..5677d16abc71 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
@@ -407,14 +407,27 @@ static int kvm_psci_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
  int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
  {
  	u32 func_id = smccc_get_function(vcpu);
-	u32 val;
+	u32 val, feature;
  
  	switch (func_id) {
  	case ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_FUNC_ID:
  		val = ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_1;
  		break;
  	case ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID:
-		val = -1;	/* Nothing supported yet */
Conceptually, might it still make sense to initialise val to 
NOT_SUPPORTED here, then overwrite it if and when a feature actually is 
present? It would in this case save a few lines as well, but I know 
multiple assignment can be one of those religious issues, so I'm not too 
fussed either way.

Robin.
+		feature = smccc_get_arg1(vcpu);
+		switch(feature) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64
+		case ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1:
+			if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR))
+				val = 0;
+			else
+				val = -1;
+			break;
+#endif
+		default:
+			val = -1;
+			break;
+		}
  		break;
  	default:
  		return kvm_psci_call(vcpu);
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help