[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160815095813.GA1996@svinekod>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:58:14 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] arm64: Privileged Access Never
using TTBR0_EL1 switching
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:48:42AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:13:58AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 12 August 2016 at 17:27, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > > This is the first (public) attempt at emulating PAN by disabling
> > > TTBR0_EL1 accesses on arm64.
> >
> > I take it using TCR_EL1.EPD0 is too expensive?
>
> It would require full TLB invalidation on entering/exiting the kernel
> and again for any user access. That's because the architecture allows
> this bit to be cached in the TLB so without TLBI we wouldn't have any
> guarantee that the actual PAN was toggled. I'm not sure it's even clear
> whether a TLBI by ASID or a local one would suffice (likely OK for the
> latter).
It's worth noting that even ignoring the TLB-caching of TCR_EL1.EPD0, the
control only affects the behaviour on a TLB miss. Thus to use EPD0 we'd at
least need TLB invalidation by ASID to remove previously-allocated entries from
TLBs.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
