From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: digetx@gmail.com (Dmitry Osipenko)
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:16:04 +0300
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: trusted_foundations: do not use naked function
In-Reply-To: <263337af-7541-be9e-3db6-6cb987fd08fb@arm.com>
References: <20180325180959.28008-1-stefan@agner.ch>
 <20180325180959.28008-4-stefan@agner.ch>
 <704c863a-0b5a-6396-d7da-f0ed17b7cca2@gmail.com>
 <263337af-7541-be9e-3db6-6cb987fd08fb@arm.com>
Message-ID: <f627177c-f813-9e10-ade5-c7654375639b@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 27.03.2018 14:54, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 26/03/18 22:20, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 25.03.2018 21:09, Stefan Agner wrote:
>>> As documented in GCC naked functions should only use Basic asm
>>> syntax. The Extended asm or mixture of Basic asm and "C" code is
>>> not guaranteed. Currently this works because it was hard coded
>>> to follow and check GCC behavior for arguments and register
>>> placement.
>>>
>>> Furthermore with clang using parameters in Extended asm in a
>>> naked function is not supported:
>>> ?? arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c:47:10: error: parameter
>>> ?????????? references not allowed in naked functions
>>> ???????????????? : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
>>> ??????????????????????? ^
>>>
>>> Use a regular function to be more portable. This aligns also with
>>> the other smc call implementations e.g. in qcom_scm-32.c and
>>> bcm_kona_smc.c.
>>>
>>> Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>> Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Keep stmfd/ldmfd to avoid potential ABI issues
>>>
>>> ? arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>>> ? 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> index 3fb1b5a1dce9..689e6565abfc 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> @@ -31,21 +31,25 @@
>>> ? ? static unsigned long cpu_boot_addr;
>>> ? -static void __naked tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
>>> +static void tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
>>> ? {
>>> +??? register u32 r0 asm("r0") = type;
>>> +??? register u32 r1 asm("r1") = arg1;
>>> +??? register u32 r2 asm("r2") = arg2;
>>> +
>>> ????? asm volatile(
>>> ????????? ".arch_extension??? sec\n\t"
>>> -??????? "stmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11, lr}\n\t"
>>> +??????? "stmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
>>> ????????? __asmeq("%0", "r0")
>>> ????????? __asmeq("%1", "r1")
>>> ????????? __asmeq("%2", "r2")
>>> ????????? "mov??? r3, #0\n\t"
>>> ????????? "mov??? r4, #0\n\t"
>>> ????????? "smc??? #0\n\t"
>>> -??????? "ldmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11, pc}"
>>> +??????? "ldmfd??? sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
>>> ????????? :
>>> -??????? : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
>>> -??????? : "memory");
>>> +??????? : "r" (r0), "r" (r1), "r" (r2)
>>> +??????? : "memory", "r3", "r12", "lr");
>>
>> Although seems "lr" won't be affected by SMC invocation because it should be
>> banked and hence could be omitted entirely from the code. Maybe somebody could
>> confirm this.
> Strictly per the letter of the architecture, the SMC could be trapped to Hyp
> mode, and a hypervisor might clobber LR_usr in the process of forwarding the
> call to the firmware secure monitor (since Hyp doesn't have a banked LR of its
> own). Admittedly there are probably no real systems with the appropriate
> hardware/software combination to hit that, but on the other hand if this gets
> inlined where the compiler has already created a stack frame then an LR clobber
> is essentially free, so I reckon we're better off keeping it for reassurance.
> This isn't exactly a critical fast path anyway.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.