kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v7 09/11] arm64: disable SCS for hypervisor code

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200211095401.GA8560@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 09:54:02 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
	clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com,
	kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 09/11] arm64: disable SCS for hypervisor code

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 06:24:32PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 06:07:41PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 06:03:28PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:52:15PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:18:58PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
> > > > > On 28/01/2020 18:49, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > > > > Filter out CC_FLAGS_SCS and -ffixed-x18 for code that runs at a
> > > > > > different exception level.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmmm, there are two things being disabled here.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stashing the lr in memory pointed to by VA won't work transparently at EL2 ... but
> > > > > shouldn't KVM's C code still treat x18 as a fixed register?
> > > > 
> > > > My review of v6 suggested dropping the -ffixed-x18 as well, since it's only
> > > > introduced by SCS (in patch 5) and so isn't required by anything else. Why
> > > > do you think it's needed?
> > > 
> > > When EL1 code calls up to hyp, it expects x18 to be preserved across the
> > > call, so hyp needs to either preserve it explicitly across a transitions
> > > from/to EL1 or always preserve it.
> > 
> > I thought we explicitly saved/restored it across the call after
> > af12376814a5 ("arm64: kvm: stop treating register x18 as caller save"). Is
> > that not sufficient?
> 
> That covers the hyp->guest->hyp round trip, but not the host->hyp->host
> portion surrounding that.

Thanks, I missed that. It's annoying that we'll end up needing /both/
-ffixed-x18 *and* the save/restore around guest transitions, but if we
actually want to use SCS for the VHE code then I see that it will be
required.

Sami -- can you restore -ffixed-x18 and then try the function attribute
as suggested by James, please?

Will

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.