Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] arm64: cpufeature: add pointer auth meta-capabilities
From: Amit Kachhap <hidden>
Date: 2020-01-16 12:36:07
Hi, On 1/15/20 9:31 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 01:52:24PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:quoted
On 15/01/2020 12:26, Catalin Marinas wrote:quoted
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 02:17:03PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c index 04cf64e..cf42c46 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c@@ -1249,6 +1249,20 @@ static void cpu_enable_address_auth(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap) sysreg_clear_set(sctlr_el1, 0, SCTLR_ELx_ENIA | SCTLR_ELx_ENIB | SCTLR_ELx_ENDA | SCTLR_ELx_ENDB); } + +static bool has_address_auth(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, + int __unused) +{ + return cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_ARCH) || + cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_IMP_DEF); +} + +static bool has_generic_auth(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, + int __unused) +{ + return cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_GENERIC_AUTH_ARCH) || + cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_GENERIC_AUTH_IMP_DEF); +}Do these rely on the order in which the entries are listed in the arm64_features[] array? It looks like we do the same for PAN_NOT_UAO but that's pretty fragile.Yes, it surely depends on the order in which they are listed.quoted
I'd prefer if we invoked the cpu_hwcaps_ptrs[ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH]->matches() directly here, maybeYes, calling the matches(cap, SYSTEM_SCOPE), that should work and is much better.quoted
hidden behind a helper (I couldn't find one at a quick look).There are no helpers for this operation to do it on a SYSTEM_SCOPE and this is only needed for caps dependent on the other caps. May be we could hide the conversion of the number to "cap" as: static inline struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cpu_cap_from_number(int n) { if (n < ARM64_NCAPS) return cpu_hwcaps_ptr[n]; return NULL; } And use this for "this_cpu_has_cap()" too.I'm not bothered about the cpu_cap_from_number() part. I was actually thinking of something like the diff below: -----------8<-------------------------diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c index 2595c2886d3f..2ea4c84fcc8a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c@@ -2008,6 +2008,18 @@ bool this_cpu_has_cap(unsigned int n) return false; } +static bool system_has_cap(unsigned int n) +{ + if (n < ARM64_NCAPS) { + const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap = cpu_hwcaps_ptrs[n]; + + if (cap) + return cap->matches(cap, SCOPE_SYSTEM); + } + + return false; +} +
This patch looks fine. ARM64_HAS_ADDRESS_AUTH_* cpufeature is moved to SCOPE_BOOT in the subsequent patches. so instead of system_has_cap, existing this_cpu_has_cap can be used. This new function can still be used for the other system meta capability cpufeatures.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
void cpu_set_feature(unsigned int num) { WARN_ON(num >= MAX_CPU_FEATURES);@@ -2081,7 +2093,7 @@ void __init setup_cpu_features(void) static bool __maybe_unused cpufeature_pan_not_uao(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int __unused) { - return (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_PAN) && !cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_UAO)); + return system_has_cap(ARM64_HAS_PAN) && !system_has_cap(ARM64_HAS_UAO); } static void __maybe_unused cpu_enable_cnp(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap)
_______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel