Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] arm64: Add initial support for E0PD
From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Date: 2019-11-07 10:12:41
On 06/11/2019 13:00, Mark Brown wrote:
Kernel Page Table Isolation (KPTI) is used to mitigate some speculation based security issues by ensuring that the kernel is not mapped when userspace is running but this approach is expensive and is incompatible with SPE. E0PD, introduced in the ARMv8.5 extensions, provides an alternative to this which ensures that accesses from userspace to the kernel's half of the memory map to always fault with constant time, preventing timing attacks without requiring constant unmapping and remapping or preventing legitimate accesses. Currently this feature will only be enabled if all CPUs in the system support E0PD, if some CPUs do not support the feature at boot time then the feature will not be enabled and in the unlikely event that a late CPU is the first CPU to lack the feature then we will reject that CPU. This initial patch does not yet integrate with KPTI, this will be dealt with in followup patches. Ideally we could ensure that by default we don't use KPTI on CPUs where E0PD is present. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
/* id_aa64mmfr2 */ +#define ID_AA64MMFR2_E0PD_SHIFT 60 #define ID_AA64MMFR2_FWB_SHIFT 40 #define ID_AA64MMFR2_AT_SHIFT 32 #define ID_AA64MMFR2_LVA_SHIFT 16diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c index cabebf1a7976..2cf2b129ebb4 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c@@ -220,6 +220,7 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64mmfr1[] = { }; static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64mmfr2[] = { + ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR2_E0PD_SHIFT, 4, 0), ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR2_FWB_SHIFT, 4, 0), ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR2_AT_SHIFT, 4, 0), ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64MMFR2_LVA_SHIFT, 4, 0),@@ -1245,6 +1246,19 @@ static void cpu_enable_address_auth(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap) } #endif /* CONFIG_ARM64_PTR_AUTH */ +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_E0PD +static void cpu_enable_e0pd(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap) +{ + /* + * The cpu_enable() callback gets called even on CPUs that + * don't detect the feature so we need to verify if we can + * enable. + */ + if (this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_HAS_E0PD)) + sysreg_clear_set(tcr_el1, 0, TCR_E0PD1); +}
Given that this is a SYSTEM_FEATURE now, we don't need the extra check. All CPUs are guaranteed to have the feature, otherwise they would be rejected early. Rest looks fine to me. Suzuki _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel