[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 05/27] arm64: Use daifflag_restore after bp_hardening

On 12/09/18 13:28, James Morse wrote:
> On 12/09/18 12:11, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> On 12/09/18 11:32, James Morse wrote:
>>> On 28/08/18 16:51, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>> For EL0 entries requiring bp_hardening, daif status is kept at
>>>> DAIF_PROCCTX_NOIRQ until after hardening has been done. Then interrupts
>>>> are enabled through local_irq_enable().
>>>> Before using local_irq_* functions, daifflags should be properly restored
>>>> to a state where IRQs are enabled.
>>>> Enable IRQs by restoring DAIF_PROCCTX state after bp hardening.
>>> Is this just for symmetry, or are you going on to add something to the daifflags
>>> state that local_irq_* functions won't change? (if so, could you allude to that
>>> in the commit message)
>> What happens is that once we use ICC_PMR_EL1, local_irq_enable will not touch
>> PSR.I. And we are coming back from an entry where PSR.I was kept to 1 so
>> local_irq_enable was not actually enabling the interrupts. On the otherhand,
>> restore will affect both.
> Got it. Thanks!
> Does this mean stop_machine()s local_save_flags()/local_irq_restore() will not
> be symmetric around __apply_alternatives_multi_stop()?
> I see you add alternatives in these in patch 15, but I haven't got that far yet)

It's a good point but it should be fine.
The changes to the irqflags make save/restore takes everything into
consideration (PMR + PSR.I) because of situtations like this,
enable/disable only toggle the PMR (so the goal is to not have PSR.I set
before reaching path calling enable/disable).
Maybe I should add a comment for this in asm/irqflags.f when I add the
alternatives, so that at least arch code can be wary of this.

>> Another option is to have the asm macro "enable_da_f" also switch to PMR usage
>> (i.e. "just keep normal interrupts disabled"). Overall it would probably be
>> easier to reason with, but I'm just unsure whether it is acceptable to receive a
>> Pseudo NMI before having applied the bp_hardening.
> Wouldn't this give the interrupt controller a headache? I assume IRQs really are
> masked when handle_arch_irq is called. (I know nothing about the gic)

Yes, you're right, I missed that da_f gets unmasked right before the
irq_handler... So unless I do some special case for irqs, enable_da_f is
not the way to go.


Julien Thierry

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-12 15:04    [W:0.076 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site