On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 12:08:58PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 9:46 AM Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:45:24PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index 2f69ae43941d..85ead6bbb38e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S

@@ -269,7 +269,28 @@ alternative_else_nop_endif
      .else
      add     x21, sp, #PT_REGS_SIZE
      get_current_task tsk
+     ldr     x0, [tsk, THREAD_SCTLR_USER]
      .endif /* \el == 0 */
+
+     /*
+      * Re-enable tag checking (TCO set on exception entry). This is only
+      * necessary if MTE is enabled in either the kernel or the userspace
+      * task in synchronous mode. With MTE disabled in the kernel and
+      * disabled or asynchronous in userspace, tag check faults (including in
+      * uaccesses) are not reported, therefore there is no need to re-enable
+      * checking. This is beneficial on microarchitectures where re-enabling
+      * TCO is expensive.
+      */
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_MTE
+alternative_cb       kasan_hw_tags_enable
+     tbz     x0, #SCTLR_EL1_TCF0_SHIFT, 1f
+alternative_cb_end
+alternative_if ARM64_MTE
+     SET_PSTATE_TCO(0)
+alternative_else_nop_endif
+1:
+#endif

I think we can get here from an interrupt as well. Can we guarantee that
the sctlr_user is valid? We are not always in a user process context.

Looking through the code in entry.S carefully it doesn't appear that
the tsk pointer is ever used when taking an exception from EL1. The
last user appears to have been removed in commit 3d2403fd10a1 ("arm64:
uaccess: remove set_fs()"). I just did a quick boot test on a couple
of platforms and things seem to work without the "get_current_task
tsk" line.

So I can't be confident that tsk points to a valid task, but at least
it looks like it was the case prior to that commit.

quoted

Maybe only do the above checks if \el == 0, otherwise just bracket it
with kasan_hw_tags_enable.

Is it possible for us to do a uaccess inside the EL1 -> EL1 exception
handler? That was the one thing I was unsure about and it's why I
opted to do the same check regardless of EL.

Today we can do so if we take a PMU IRQ from EL1 and try to do an EL0
stack unwind or stack dump, and similar holds for some eBPF stuff.

We also need to ensure that PSTATE.TCO is configured consistently so
that context-switch works, otherwise where a CPU switches between tasks
A and B, where A is preempted by an EL1 IRQ, and B is explicitly
switching via a direct call to schedule(), the state of TCO will not be
as expected (unless we track this per thread, and handle it in the
context switch).

I'd strongly prefer that the state of PSTATE.TCO upon taking an
exception to EL1 is consistent (by the end of the early entry code),
regardless of where that was taken from.

Is it easier to manage this from within entry-common.c?

Thanks,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel