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=-8.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable 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 ED860C67839 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB7021104 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:28:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="qUB+i0Un" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BAB7021104 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=UzWKb8N1QtwPyhSTMIRR/spaFgoyKsNG/Cp11MKMiR4=; b=qUB+i0UnoqPq1B Hv2sapy6KalwJK94fnRmFuXTBWuQg7FP7Zg1+FQtRdhdYMTTpTVaq4LPka/aC4P4cirnm2uIVh2+/ r7y63r3siTsfom3bos1NfOEcDPMwyZ37qGzfFlhV0BmezdjDrOwPRGmwFgazkgHk+R9KBNHHRGaSt adl98ihOtb2V8TP0thJ6jx/fCsoirSXIZ8i1pXzsdiOfLd9d93viiU9CtrvaOwci/x8h51W2SD4nn UEOdFDLVoLYD1Cvcpr3zLNMyKzBCZPXWtT2Uf52Rsj2r5ZgsLMN9NS354iEsDygyb2/cfBeVvIx59 sCwMhtNCq/RcI/lCK37g==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gXldz-0006r1-Rz; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:28:35 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70] helo=foss.arm.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gXldx-0006px-Lf for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:28:35 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917AAEBD; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 03:28:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from e103592.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0B623F6A8; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 03:28:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 11:28:16 +0000 From: Dave Martin To: Steven Price Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: add sysfs vulnerability show for speculative store bypass Message-ID: <20181214112809.GF3505@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20181206234408.1287689-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20181206234408.1287689-6-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <901bdfff-df83-846f-1695-a89e8bbfa787@arm.com> <20181214103644.GB1872@edgewater-inn.cambridge.arm.com> <96ac8a3f-9c03-9ad9-e148-5f3422c51075@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <96ac8a3f-9c03-9ad9-e148-5f3422c51075@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20181214_032833_716062_E518BE3E X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.87 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com, Will Deacon , ykaukab@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Linton , shankerd@codeaurora.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:41:42AM +0000, Steven Price wrote: > On 14/12/2018 10:36, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 10:34:31AM +0000, Steven Price wrote: > >> On 06/12/2018 23:44, Jeremy Linton wrote: > >>> From: Mian Yousaf Kaukab > >>> > >>> Return status based no ssbd_state and the arm64 SSBS feature. > >> ^^ on > >> > >>> Return string "Unknown" in case CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD is > >>> disabled or arch workaround2 is not available > >>> in the firmware. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mian Yousaf Kaukab > >>> [Added SSBS logic] > >>> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > >>> index 6505c93d507e..8aeb5ca38db8 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c > >>> @@ -423,6 +423,7 @@ static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, > >>> ssbd_state = ARM64_SSBD_UNKNOWN; > >>> return false; > >>> > >>> + /* machines with mixed mitigation requirements must not return this */ > >>> case SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED: > >>> pr_info_once("%s mitigation not required\n", entry->desc); > >>> ssbd_state = ARM64_SSBD_MITIGATED; > >>> @@ -828,4 +829,31 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_spectre_v2(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, > >>> } > >>> } > >>> > >>> +ssize_t cpu_show_spec_store_bypass(struct device *dev, > >>> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > >>> +{ > >>> + /* > >>> + * Two assumptions: First, get_ssbd_state() reflects the worse case > >>> + * for hetrogenous machines, and that if SSBS is supported its > >> ^^^^ SSBD > >>> + * supported by all cores. > >>> + */ > >>> + switch (arm64_get_ssbd_state()) { > >>> + case ARM64_SSBD_MITIGATED: > >>> + return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n"); > >>> + > >>> + case ARM64_SSBD_KERNEL: > >>> + case ARM64_SSBD_FORCE_ENABLE: > >>> + if (cpus_have_cap(ARM64_SSBS)) > >>> + return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n"); > >>> + return sprintf(buf, > >>> + "Mitigation: Speculative Store Bypass disabled\n"); > >> > >> NIT: To me this reads as the mitigation is disabled. Can we call it > >> "Speculative Store Bypass Disable" (with a capital 'D' and without the > >> 'd at the end)? > > > > Whilst I agree that the strings are reasonably confusing (especially when > > you pile on the double-negatives all the way up the stack!), we really > > have no choice but to follow x86's lead with these strings. > > > > I don't think it's worth forking the ABI in an attempt to make this clearer. > > Ah, sorry I hadn't checked the x86 string - yes we should match that. This is rather why I feel these strings are either a) useless or b) should be documented somewhere. Putting at least a skeleton document somewhere could be a good start, and would require little effort. What decisions do we expect userspace to make based on this information? Cheers ---Dave _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel