From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50ADC2D0E8 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291D220737 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Il47vERB" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 291D220737 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EB14B14F; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 07:20:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Authentication-Results: mm01.cs.columbia.edu (amavisd-new); dkim=softfail (fail, message has been altered) header.i=@kernel.org Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFkEMY-qODmJ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 07:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1BD4B15D; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 07:20:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DFD4B15D for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 07:20:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5xxzH85hpMo2 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 07:20:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C75214B14F for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 07:20:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from disco-boy.misterjones.org (disco-boy.misterjones.org [51.254.78.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A994520737; Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:20:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1585912828; bh=VkbijjM+51iknoUD0yZ0gT3cXkNqrNfBcoLbQJeIJAM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Il47vERBim2JDy7oDA2LDIWqFNH+EnkbYyI8P8YBHlsP657q8CEuD0Rb2ZRtfQ04+ WhbBrw/kMlQnXm+0hHylvFuMd/H7bTbcOB3JpCxiw2tl/EBZw8rDUYV1wcrqV5q8+H MU9H1dEB+kPMAyzG6CIW/FnWNe+APKgHh6Ss7+AA= Received: from 78.163-31-62.static.virginmediabusiness.co.uk ([62.31.163.78] helo=why) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jKKN9-000U4Y-0m; Fri, 03 Apr 2020 12:20:27 +0100 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 12:20:24 +0100 From: Marc Zyngier To: Alexandru Elisei Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: arm64: PSCI fixes Message-ID: <20200403122024.60dcec10@why> In-Reply-To: <23107386-bbad-6ee1-c1cc-03dd70868905@arm.com> References: <20200401165816.530281-1-maz@kernel.org> <23107386-bbad-6ee1-c1cc-03dd70868905@arm.com> Organization: Approximate X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 62.31.163.78 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.elisei@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christoffer.Dall@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Hi Alexandru, On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 11:35:00 +0100 Alexandru Elisei wrote: > Hi, > > On 4/1/20 5:58 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > Christoffer recently pointed out that we don't narrow the arguments to > > SMC32 PSCI functions called by a 64bit guest. This could result in a > > guest failing to boot its secondary CPUs if it had junk in the upper > > 32bits. Yes, this is silly, but the guest is allowed to do that. Duh. > > > > Whist I was looking at this, it became apparent that we allow a 32bit > > guest to call 64bit functions, which the spec explicitly forbids. Oh > > well, another patch. > > > > This has been lightly tested, but I feel that we could do with a new > > set of PSCI corner cases in KVM-unit-tests (hint, nudge... ;-). > > Good idea. I was already planning to add new PSCI and timer tests, I'm waiting for > Paolo to merge the pull request from Drew, which contains some fixes for the > current tests. > > > > > Marc Zyngier (2): > > KVM: arm64: PSCI: Narrow input registers when using 32bit functions > > KVM: arm64: PSCI: Forbid 64bit functions for 32bit guests > > > > virt/kvm/arm/psci.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) > > > I started reviewing the patches and I have a question. I'm probably missing > something, but why make the changes to the PSCI code instead of making them in the > kvm_hvc_call_handler function? From my understanding of the code, making the > changes there would benefit all firmware interface that use SMCCC as the > communication protocol, not just PSCI. The problem is that it is not obvious whether other functions have similar requirements. For example, the old PSCI 0.1 functions are completely outside of the SMCCC scope (there is no split between 32 and 64bit functions, for example), and there is no generic way to discover the number of arguments that you would want to narrow. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm