Re: [PATCH v2] target/riscv: update checks on writing pmpcfg for Smepmp version 1.0

[Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>]

On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 04:38:34PM +0800, Alvin Chang wrote:
> Current checks on writing pmpcfg for Smepmp follows Smepmp version
> 0.9.1. However, Smepmp specification has already been ratified, and
> there are some differences between version 0.9.1 and 1.0. In this commit
> we update the checks of writing pmpcfg to follow Smepmp version 1.0.
> 
> When mseccfg.MML is set, the constraints to modify PMP rules are:
> 1. Locked rules connot be removed or modified until a PMP reset, unless
>    mseccfg.RLB is set.
> 2. From Smepmp specification version 1.0, chapter 2 section 4b:
>    Adding a rule with executable privileges that either is M-mode-only
>    or a locked Shared-Region is not possible and such pmpcfg writes are
>    ignored, leaving pmpcfg unchanged.
> 
> The commit transfers the value of pmpcfg into the index of the Smepmp
> truth table, and checks the rules by aforementioned specification
> changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alvin Chang <alvinga@andestech.com>
> ---
> Changes from v1: Convert ePMP over to Smepmp.
> 
>  target/riscv/pmp.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/target/riscv/pmp.c b/target/riscv/pmp.c
> index 9d8db493e6..d1c3fc1e4f 100644
> --- a/target/riscv/pmp.c
> +++ b/target/riscv/pmp.c
> @@ -98,16 +98,49 @@ static bool pmp_write_cfg(CPURISCVState *env, uint32_t pmp_index, uint8_t val)
>                  locked = false;
>              }
>  
> -            /* mseccfg.MML is set */
> -            if (MSECCFG_MML_ISSET(env)) {
> -                /* not adding execute bit */
> -                if ((val & PMP_LOCK) != 0 && (val & PMP_EXEC) != PMP_EXEC) {
> -                    locked = false;
> -                }
> -                /* shared region and not adding X bit */
> -                if ((val & PMP_LOCK) != PMP_LOCK &&
> -                    (val & 0x7) != (PMP_WRITE | PMP_EXEC)) {
> +            /*
> +             * mseccfg.MML is set. Locked rules cannot be removed or modified
> +             * until a PMP reset. Besides, from Smepmp specification version 1.0
> +             * , chapter 2 section 4b says:
> +             * Adding a rule with executable privileges that either is
> +             * M-mode-only or a locked Shared-Region is not possible and such
> +             * pmpcfg writes are ignored, leaving pmpcfg unchanged.
> +             */
> +            if (MSECCFG_MML_ISSET(env) && !pmp_is_locked(env, pmp_index)) {
> +                /*
> +                 * Convert the PMP permissions to match the truth table in the
> +                 * ePMP spec.
> +                 */
> +                const uint8_t epmp_operation =
> +                    ((val & PMP_LOCK) >> 4) | ((val & PMP_READ) << 2) |
> +                    (val & PMP_WRITE) | ((val & PMP_EXEC) >> 2);
> +
> +                switch (epmp_operation) {
> +                /* pmpcfg.L = 0. Neither M-mode-only nor locked Shared-Region */
> +                case 0:
> +                case 1:
> +                case 2:
> +                case 3:
> +                case 4:
> +                case 5:
> +                case 6:
> +                case 7:
> +                /* pmpcfg.L = 1 and pmpcfg.X = 0 (but case 10 is not allowed) */
> +                case 8:

case 0 ... 8:

> +                case 12:
> +                case 14:
> +                /* pmpcfg.LRWX = 1111 */
> +                case 15:  /* Read-only locked Shared-Region on all modes */
>                      locked = false;
> +                    break;
> +                /* Other rules which add new code regions are not allowed */
> +                case 9:
> +                case 10:  /* Execute-only locked Shared-Region on all modes */
> +                case 11:

case 9 ... 11:

And why not put these cases in numerical order?

> +                case 13:
> +                    break;
> +                default:
> +                    g_assert_not_reached();
>                  }
>              }
>          } else {
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 
>

It looks like this patch has overlap with 

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230907062440.1174224-1-mchitale@ventanamicro.com/

Maybe you and Mayuresh can work together on a final patch.

Thanks,
drew