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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15FEC636CC for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 14:26:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc: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=caueAQEQDsUVq66y5N5FmW9ufZd72E1TW8XjYRCtY9I=; b=a1vwsXkSiV0QjT I9VzHI56OevLIv2kZvrLKBLkjLBleZ43HO5L/ERI6F2wNVAR+n9zGICqDTSI6bI3L4xqqTAHIMQa0 z/JSHfhY1je+6c5jJZCE70VivgEJLmCwq806gVUHkaZ9Jg8k9/KVtUAkzEj/ahtl2GTuj80AqQoJJ 8bM5s/4O8UYcYmqTU+YfGlMFAqLiJqeqcYkM+vuO+RRewSyJBEQ9hTKFZvO9HVC7BN1xIbL37KhfT Fhmwur9jymvZQeUPfIhhgOxfZubehL/rtlzZjpuqVkpaB4qANDIvCCz9FTfp/W3iceQOEeFut4KPo GGjgtMNhB0dVYmIhCKYA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pPlNu-00FtFT-Nr; Wed, 08 Feb 2023 14:25:18 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1pPlNq-00FtE4-Vf for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2023 14:25:16 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2711042; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 06:25:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com (FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.30.155]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8D8D3F8C6; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 06:25:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 14:25:03 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Will Deacon , linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Catalin Marinas , Kees Cook , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] efi: arm64: Wire up BTI annotation in memory attributes table Message-ID: References: <20230206124938.272988-1-ardb@kernel.org> <20230206124938.272988-3-ardb@kernel.org> <20230208130007.GA13529@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230208_062515_152162_B7287DE9 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 32.17 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 02:03:45PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 14:00, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 01:49:37PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > UEFI v2.10 extends the EFI memory attributes table with a flag that > > > indicates whether or not all RuntimeServicesCode regions were > > > constructed with BTI landing pads, permitting the OS to map these > > > regions with BTI restrictions enabled. > > > > > > So let's take this into account on arm64. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 6 ++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > > > index 78ffd5aaddcbbaee..99971cd349f36310 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/efi.c > > > @@ -96,15 +96,23 @@ int __init efi_create_mapping(struct mm_struct *mm, efi_memory_desc_t *md) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +struct set_perm_data { > > > + const efi_memory_desc_t *md; > > > + bool has_bti; > > > +}; > > > + > > > static int __init set_permissions(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long addr, void *data) > > > { > > > - efi_memory_desc_t *md = data; > > > + struct set_perm_data *spd = data; > > > + const efi_memory_desc_t *md = spd->md; > > > pte_t pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep); > > > > > > if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_RO) > > > pte = set_pte_bit(pte, __pgprot(PTE_RDONLY)); > > > if (md->attribute & EFI_MEMORY_XP) > > > pte = set_pte_bit(pte, __pgprot(PTE_PXN)); > > > + else if (system_supports_bti() && spd->has_bti) > > > > system_supports_bti() seems to check CONFIG_ARM64_BTI rather than > > CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL. In theory, I think this means we could have > > mismatched BTI support, so it might be slightly more robust to use the > > latter option here even thought the runtime services aren't kernel code. > > > > What do you think? > > v1 checked for CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL as well, but I dropped it > because we can do the enforcement even without it. > > I'm not sure how mismatched BTI support factors into that, though, > given that CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL is set at compile time. You mean > mismatched between cores, right? I believe that there's no issue with mismatched CPUs, but there *might* might be a different issue with the ordering of feature detection and usage of the cap: * If CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL=y, then the ARM64_BTI cap is detected as a strict boot cpu feature, and secondaries without it will be rejected. * If CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL=n then the ARM64_BTI cap is detected as a system feature, and so we only set the cap bit after bringing all secondary CPUs online, and only when *all* CPUs support it. The happens under setup_cpu_features(), called from smp_cpus_done(). So there's no issue with mismatch, but if system_supports_bti is called before smp_cpus_done() on a CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL kernel it will return false. When do we set up the EFI mappings relative to that? Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel