From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@arm.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <Vincenzo.Frascino@arm.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: ptrauth: add pointer authentication Armv8.6 enhanced feature
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 11:57:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200228115736.GA3275@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1582117240-15330-2-git-send-email-amit.kachhap@arm.com>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:30:39PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> This patch add changes for Pointer Authentication enhanced features
> mandatory for Armv8.6. These features are,
>
> * Uses an enhanced PAC generation logic which hardens finding the
> correct PAC value of the authenticated pointer. However, no code
> change is required for this.
>
> * Fault is generated now when the ptrauth authentication instruction
> fails in authenticating the PAC present in the address. This is
> different from earlier case when such failures just adds an error
> code in the top byte and waits for subsequent load/store to abort.
> The ptrauth instructions which may cause this fault are autiasp,
> retaa etc.
>
> The above features are now represented by additional configurations
> for the Address Authentication cpufeature. These different
> configurations are now updated to FTR_EXACT instead of FTR_LOWER_SAFE
> as they all have different behaviour.
>
> The fault received in the kernel due to FPAC is treated as Illegal
> instruction and hence signal SIGILL is injected with ILL_ILLOPN as the
> signal code. Note that this is different from earlier ARMv8.3 ptrauth
> where signal SIGSEGV is issued due to Pointer authentication failures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h | 4 +++-
> arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++--------
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 4 ++--
> arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 6 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
> index cb29253..5a1406f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
> @@ -35,7 +35,9 @@
> #define ESR_ELx_EC_SYS64 (0x18)
> #define ESR_ELx_EC_SVE (0x19)
> #define ESR_ELx_EC_ERET (0x1a) /* EL2 only */
> -/* Unallocated EC: 0x1b - 0x1E */
> +/* Unallocated EC: 0x1B */
> +#define ESR_ELx_EC_FPAC (0x1C) /* EL1 and above */
> +/* Unallocated EC: 0x1D - 0x1E */
> #define ESR_ELx_EC_IMP_DEF (0x1f) /* EL3 only */
> #define ESR_ELx_EC_IABT_LOW (0x20)
> #define ESR_ELx_EC_IABT_CUR (0x21)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h
> index 7a6e81ca..de76772 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h
> @@ -46,4 +46,5 @@ void bad_el0_sync(struct pt_regs *regs, int reason, unsigned int esr);
> void do_cp15instr(unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> void do_el0_svc(struct pt_regs *regs);
> void do_el0_svc_compat(struct pt_regs *regs);
> +void do_ptrauth_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr);
> #endif /* __ASM_EXCEPTION_H */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> index b91570f..77728f5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> @@ -585,14 +585,22 @@
> #define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_SHIFT 4
> #define ID_AA64ISAR1_DPB_SHIFT 0
>
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_NI 0x0
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_ARCHITECTED 0x1
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_NI 0x0
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_IMP_DEF 0x1
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPA_NI 0x0
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPA_ARCHITECTED 0x1
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPI_NI 0x0
> -#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPI_IMP_DEF 0x1
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_NI 0x0
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_ARCHITECTED 0x1
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_ARCH_EPAC 0x2
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_ARCH_EPAC2 0x3
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_ARCH_EPAC2_FPAC 0x4
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_ARCH_EPAC2_FPAC_CMB 0x5
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_NI 0x0
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_IMP_DEF 0x1
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_IMP_DEF_EPAC 0x2
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_IMP_DEF_EPAC2 0x3
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_IMP_DEF_EPAC2_FPAC 0x4
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_API_IMP_DEF_EPAC2_FPAC_CMB 0x5
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPA_NI 0x0
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPA_ARCHITECTED 0x1
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPI_NI 0x0
> +#define ID_AA64ISAR1_GPI_IMP_DEF 0x1
>
> /* id_aa64pfr0 */
> #define ID_AA64PFR0_CSV3_SHIFT 60
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 8d1c979..a4f8adb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -154,9 +154,9 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64isar1[] = {
> ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR1_FCMA_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR1_JSCVT_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE_IF_IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_PTR_AUTH),
> - FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR1_API_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> + FTR_STRICT, FTR_EXACT, ID_AA64ISAR1_API_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE_IF_IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_PTR_AUTH),
> - FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> + FTR_STRICT, FTR_EXACT, ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64ISAR1_DPB_SHIFT, 4, 0),
> ARM64_FTR_END,
Hmm. This is a user-visible change and should probably be in its own patch.
It also means we will no longer advertise PAC on systems where not all of
the cores have "Enhanced PAC"; is that really necessary?
Generally we rely on incremental updates to unsigned ID register fields
being a superset (i.e. compatible with) the old behaviour. If that's not
the case here, then older kernels are broken and we may need new HWCAPs.
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-28 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-19 13:00 [PATCH 0/2] arm64: add Armv8.6 pointer authentication Amit Daniel Kachhap
2020-02-19 13:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: ptrauth: add pointer authentication Armv8.6 enhanced feature Amit Daniel Kachhap
2020-02-28 11:57 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-02-28 12:03 ` Mark Rutland
2020-02-28 12:23 ` Will Deacon
2020-03-02 12:48 ` Amit Kachhap
2020-03-02 16:29 ` Will Deacon
2020-02-19 13:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: kprobe: disable probe of fault prone ptrauth instruction Amit Daniel Kachhap
2020-02-27 16:48 ` Mark Rutland
2020-02-28 11:12 ` Amit Kachhap
2020-02-28 11:18 ` Will Deacon
2020-02-28 11:31 ` Mark Rutland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200228115736.GA3275@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=Vincenzo.Frascino@arm.com \
--cc=amit.kachhap@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kristina.martsenko@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox