1. 28 Mar, 2018 3 commits
    • Dave Martin's avatar
      arm64: uaccess: Fix omissions from usercopy whitelist · 65896545
      Dave Martin authored
      When the hardend usercopy support was added for arm64, it was
      concluded that all cases of usercopy into and out of thread_struct
      were statically sized and so didn't require explicit whitelisting
      of the appropriate fields in thread_struct.
      
      Testing with usercopy hardening enabled has revealed that this is
      not the case for certain ptrace regset manipulation calls on arm64.
      This occurs because the sizes of usercopies associated with the
      regset API are dynamic by construction, and because arm64 does not
      always stage such copies via the stack: indeed the regset API is
      designed to avoid the need for that by adding some bounds checking.
      
      This is currently believed to affect only the fpsimd and TLS
      registers.
      
      Because the whitelisted fields in thread_struct must be contiguous,
      this patch groups them together in a nested struct.  It is also
      necessary to be able to determine the location and size of that
      struct, so rather than making the struct anonymous (which would
      save on edits elsewhere) or adding an anonymous union containing
      named and unnamed instances of the same struct (gross), this patch
      gives the struct a name and makes the necessary edits to code that
      references it (noisy but simple).
      
      Care is needed to ensure that the new struct does not contain
      padding (which the usercopy hardening would fail to protect).
      
      For this reason, the presence of tp2_value is made unconditional,
      since a padding field would be needed there in any case.  This pads
      up to the 16-byte alignment required by struct user_fpsimd_state.
      Acked-by: default avatarKees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
      Reported-by: default avatarMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Fixes: 9e8084d3 ("arm64: Implement thread_struct whitelist for hardened usercopy")
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      65896545
    • Dave Martin's avatar
      arm64: fpsimd: Split cpu field out from struct fpsimd_state · 20b85472
      Dave Martin authored
      In preparation for using a common representation of the FPSIMD
      state for tasks and KVM vcpus, this patch separates out the "cpu"
      field that is used to track the cpu on which the state was most
      recently loaded.
      
      This will allow common code to operate on task and vcpu contexts
      without requiring the cpu field to be stored at the same offset
      from the FPSIMD register data in both cases.  This should avoid the
      need for messing with the definition of those parts of struct
      vcpu_arch that are exposed in the KVM user ABI.
      
      The resulting change is also convenient for grouping and defining
      the set of thread_struct fields that are supposed to be accessible
      to copy_{to,from}_user(), which includes user_fpsimd_state but
      should exclude the cpu field.  This patch does not amend the
      usercopy whitelist to match: that will be addressed in a subsequent
      patch.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
      [will: inline fpsimd_flush_state for now]
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      20b85472
    • Philip Elcan's avatar
      arm64: tlbflush: avoid writing RES0 bits · 7f170499
      Philip Elcan authored
      Several of the bits of the TLBI register operand are RES0 per the ARM
      ARM, so TLBI operations should avoid writing non-zero values to these
      bits.
      
      This patch adds a macro __TLBI_VADDR(addr, asid) that creates the
      operand register in the correct format and honors the RES0 bits.
      Acked-by: default avatarMark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarPhilip Elcan <pelcan@codeaurora.org>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      7f170499
  2. 27 Mar, 2018 9 commits
  3. 26 Mar, 2018 23 commits
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: Add work around for Arm Cortex-A55 Erratum 1024718 · ece1397c
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Some variants of the Arm Cortex-55 cores (r0p0, r0p1, r1p0) suffer
      from an erratum 1024718, which causes incorrect updates when DBM/AP
      bits in a page table entry is modified without a break-before-make
      sequence. The work around is to skip enabling the hardware DBM feature
      on the affected cores. The hardware Access Flag management features
      is not affected. There are some other cores suffering from this
      errata, which could be added to the midr_list to trigger the work
      around.
      
      Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      Cc: ckadabi@codeaurora.org
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      ece1397c
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: Delay enabling hardware DBM feature · 05abb595
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      We enable hardware DBM bit in a capable CPU, very early in the
      boot via __cpu_setup. This doesn't give us a flexibility of
      optionally disable the feature, as the clearing the bit
      is a bit costly as the TLB can cache the settings. Instead,
      we delay enabling the feature until the CPU is brought up
      into the kernel. We use the feature capability mechanism
      to handle it.
      
      The hardware DBM is a non-conflicting feature. i.e, the kernel
      can safely run with a mix of CPUs with some using the feature
      and the others don't. So, it is safe for a late CPU to have
      this capability and enable it, even if the active CPUs don't.
      
      To get this handled properly by the infrastructure, we
      unconditionally set the capability and only enable it
      on CPUs which really have the feature. Also, we print the
      feature detection from the "matches" call back to make sure
      we don't mislead the user when none of the CPUs could use the
      feature.
      
      Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      05abb595
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: Add MIDR encoding for Arm Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35 · 6e616864
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Update the MIDR encodings for the Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35
      
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      6e616864
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Handle shared entries · ba7d9233
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated
      actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the
      same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same
      capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the
      cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the
      detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates
      other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap.
      
      This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations
      of a capability by maintaining list of matches + cpu_enable callbacks.
      To avoid complicating the prototypes for the "matches()", we use
      arm64_cpu_capabilities maintain the list and we ignore all the other
      fields except the matches & cpu_enable.
      
      This ensures :
      
       1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects
       2) Action is only taken for the entries that "matches".
      
      This avoids explicit checks in the cpu_enable() take some action.
      The only constraint here is that, all the entries should have the
      same "type" (i.e, scope and conflict rules).
      
      If a cpu_enable() method is associated with multiple matches for a
      single capability, care should be taken that either the match criteria
      are mutually exclusive, or that the method is robust against being
      called multiple times.
      
      This also reverts the changes introduced by commit 67948af4
      ("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a capability").
      
      Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      ba7d9233
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Add support for checks based on a list of MIDRs · be5b2998
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Add helpers for detecting an errata on list of midr ranges
      of affected CPUs, with the same work around.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      be5b2998
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: Add helpers for checking CPU MIDR against a range · 1df31050
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Add helpers for checking if the given CPU midr falls in a range
      of variants/revisions for a given model.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      1df31050
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Clean up midr range helpers · 5e7951ce
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      We are about to introduce generic MIDR range helpers. Clean
      up the existing helpers in erratum handling, preparing them
      to use generic version.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      5e7951ce
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Change scope of VHE to Boot CPU feature · 830dcc9f
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      We expect all CPUs to be running at the same EL inside the kernel
      with or without VHE enabled and we have strict checks to ensure
      that any mismatch triggers a kernel panic. If VHE is enabled,
      we use the feature based on the boot CPU and all other CPUs
      should follow. This makes it a perfect candidate for a capability
      based on the boot CPU,  which should be matched by all the CPUs
      (both when is ON and OFF). This saves us some not-so-pretty
      hooks and special code, just for verifying the conflict.
      
      The patch also makes the VHE capability entry depend on
      CONFIG_ARM64_VHE.
      
      Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      830dcc9f
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early · fd9d63da
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      The kernel detects and uses some of the features based on the boot
      CPU and expects that all the following CPUs conform to it. e.g,
      with VHE and the boot CPU running at EL2, the kernel decides to
      keep the kernel running at EL2. If another CPU is brought up without
      this capability, we use custom hooks (via check_early_cpu_features())
      to handle it. To handle such capabilities add support for detecting
      and enabling capabilities based on the boot CPU.
      
      A bit is added to indicate if the capability should be detected
      early on the boot CPU. The infrastructure then ensures that such
      capabilities are probed and "enabled" early on in the boot CPU
      and, enabled on the subsequent CPUs.
      
      Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      fd9d63da
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI detection to boot-time CPUs · d3aec8a2
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      KPTI is treated as a system wide feature and is only detected if all
      the CPUs in the sysetm needs the defense, unless it is forced via kernel
      command line. This leaves a system with a mix of CPUs with and without
      the defense vulnerable. Also, if a late CPU needs KPTI but KPTI was not
      activated at boot time, the CPU is currently allowed to boot, which is a
      potential security vulnerability.
      This patch ensures that the KPTI is turned on if at least one CPU detects
      the capability (i.e, change scope to SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU). Also rejetcs a late
      CPU, if it requires the defense, when the system hasn't enabled it,
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      d3aec8a2
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Introduce weak features based on local CPU · 5c137714
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Now that we have the flexibility of defining system features based
      on individual CPUs, introduce CPU feature type that can be detected
      on a local SCOPE and ignores the conflict on late CPUs. This is
      applicable for ARM64_HAS_NO_HW_PREFETCH, where it is fine for
      the system to have CPUs without hardware prefetch turning up
      later. We only suffer a performance penalty, nothing fatal.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      5c137714
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds · ed478b3f
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Now that the features and errata workarounds have the same
      rules and flow, group the handling of the tables.
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      ed478b3f
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Allow features based on local CPU scope · fbd890b9
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      So far we have treated the feature capabilities as system wide
      and this wouldn't help with features that could be detected locally
      on one or more CPUs (e.g, KPTI, Software prefetch). This patch
      splits the feature detection to two phases :
      
       1) Local CPU features are checked on all boot time active CPUs.
       2) System wide features are checked only once after all CPUs are
          active.
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      fbd890b9
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Split the processing of errata work arounds · d69fe9a7
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Right now we run through the errata workarounds check on all boot
      active CPUs, with SCOPE_ALL. This wouldn't help for detecting erratum
      workarounds with a SYSTEM_SCOPE. There are none yet, but we plan to
      introduce some: let us clean this up so that such workarounds can be
      detected and enabled correctly.
      
      So, we run the checks with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU on all CPUs and SCOPE_SYSTEM
      checks are run only once after all the boot time CPUs are active.
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      d69fe9a7
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Prepare for grouping features and errata work arounds · 600b9c91
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      We are about to group the handling of all capabilities (features
      and errata workarounds). This patch open codes the wrapper routines
      to make it easier to merge the handling.
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      600b9c91
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given mask · cce360b5
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      While processing the list of capabilities, it is useful to
      filter out some of the entries based on the given mask for the
      scope of the capabilities to allow better control. This can be
      used later for handling LOCAL vs SYSTEM wide capabilities and more.
      All capabilities should have their scope set to either LOCAL_CPU or
      SYSTEM. No functional/flow change.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      cce360b5
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Unify the verification · eaac4d83
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      Now that each capability describes how to treat the conflicts
      of CPU cap state vs System wide cap state, we can unify the
      verification logic to a single place.
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      eaac4d83
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU · 5b4747c5
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are
      known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()).
      Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we
      could have the following combinations of conflict.
      
      	x-----------------------------x
      	| Type  | System   | Late CPU |
      	|-----------------------------|
      	|  a    |   y      |    n     |
      	|-----------------------------|
      	|  b    |   n      |    y     |
      	x-----------------------------x
      
      Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the
      system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for
      all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain
      filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as
      long as the system already enables it.
      
      Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated
      after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here,
      yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too
      late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc).
      
      Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled.
      
       ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability
       ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability.
      
      Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and
      the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      5b4747c5
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities · 143ba05d
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed
      to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which
      include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities
      have some properties that decide how they should be treated :
      
       1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either :
          - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)
      	Or
          - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM)
      
       2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the
        system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or
        not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code.
        Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all
        the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps,
        which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI)
        and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought
        up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability.
      
       3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked
        against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via
        verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability
        on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations
        of conflict.
      
      	x-----------------------------x
      	| Type	| System   | Late CPU |
      	------------------------------|
      	|  a    |   y      |    n     |
      	------------------------------|
      	|  b    |   n      |    y     |
      	x-----------------------------x
      
        Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the
        system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for
        all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain
        filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as
        long as the system already enables it.
      
        Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some
        work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features.
        Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we
        are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs
        etc).
      
      So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability.
      And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly,
      we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover
      errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step
      to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above.
      
      We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a
      capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability.
      
      As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated.
      
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      143ba05d
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Move errata processing code · 1e89baed
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      We have errata work around processing code in cpu_errata.c,
      which calls back into helpers defined in cpufeature.c. Now
      that we are going to make the handling of capabilities
      generic, by adding the information to each capability,
      move the errata work around specific processing code.
      No functional changes.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      1e89baed
    • Suzuki K Poulose's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Move errata work around check on boot CPU · 5e91107b
      Suzuki K Poulose authored
      We trigger CPU errata work around check on the boot CPU from
      smp_prepare_boot_cpu() to make sure that we run the checks only
      after the CPU feature infrastructure is initialised. While this
      is correct, we can also do this from init_cpu_features() which
      initilises the infrastructure, and is called only on the
      Boot CPU. This helps to consolidate the CPU capability handling
      to cpufeature.c. No functional changes.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      5e91107b
    • Dave Martin's avatar
      arm64: capabilities: Update prototype for enable call back · c0cda3b8
      Dave Martin authored
      We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities
      available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored
      the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to
      accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with
      stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d
      ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"),
      there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability
      struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single
      capability. Clean up the declaration of the call back to make it clear.
      
       1) Renamed to cpu_enable(), to imply taking necessary actions on the
          called CPU for the entry.
       2) Pass const pointer to the capability, to allow the call back to
          check the entry. (e.,g to check if any action is needed on the CPU)
       3) We don't care about the result of the call back, turning this to
          a void.
      
      Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
      Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
      Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
      Acked-by: default avatarRobin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarJulien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
      [suzuki: convert more users, rename call back and drop results]
      Signed-off-by: default avatarSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      c0cda3b8
    • Dave Martin's avatar
      arm64/sve: Document firmware support requirements in Kconfig · 5043694e
      Dave Martin authored
      Use of SVE by EL2 and below requires explicit support in the
      firmware.  There is no means to hide the presence of SVE from EL2,
      so a kernel configured with CONFIG_ARM64_SVE=y will typically not
      work correctly on SVE capable hardware unless the firmware does
      include the appropriate support.
      
      This is not expected to pose a problem in the wild, since platform
      integrators are responsible for ensuring that they ship up-to-date
      firmware to support their hardware.  However, developers may hit
      the issue when using mismatched compoments.
      
      In order to draw attention to the issue and how to solve it, this
      patch adds some Kconfig text giving a brief explanation and details
      of compatible firmware versions.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
      Acked-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      5043694e
  4. 20 Mar, 2018 2 commits
    • Dave Martin's avatar
      arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE · af4a81b9
      Dave Martin authored
      Currently a SIGFPE delivered in response to a floating-point
      exception trap may have si_code set to 0 on arm64.  As reported by
      Eric, this is a bad idea since this is the value of SI_USER -- yet
      this signal is definitely not the result of kill(2), tgkill(2) etc.
      and si_uid and si_pid make limited sense whereas we do want to
      yield a value for si_addr (which doesn't exist for SI_USER).
      
      It's not entirely clear whether the architecure permits a
      "spurious" fp exception trap where none of the exception flag bits
      in ESR_ELx is set.  (IMHO the architectural intent is to forbid
      this.)  However, it does permit those bits to contain garbage if
      the TFV bit in ESR_ELx is 0.  That case isn't currently handled at
      all and may result in si_code == 0 or si_code containing a FPE_FLT*
      constant corresponding to an exception that did not in fact happen.
      
      There is nothing sensible we can return for si_code in such cases,
      but SI_USER is certainly not appropriate and will lead to violation
      of legitimate userspace assumptions.
      
      This patch allocates a new si_code value FPE_UNKNOWN that at least
      does not conflict with any existing SI_* or FPE_* code, and yields
      this in si_code for undiagnosable cases.  This is probably the best
      simplicity/incorrectness tradeoff achieveable without relying on
      implementation-dependent features or adding a lot of code.  In any
      case, there appears to be no perfect solution possible that would
      justify a lot of effort here.
      
      Yielding FPE_UNKNOWN when some well-defined fp exception caused the
      trap is a violation of POSIX, but this is forced by the
      architecture.  We have no realistic prospect of yielding the
      correct code in such cases.  At present I am not aware of any ARMv8
      implementation that supports trapped floating-point exceptions in
      any case.
      
      The new code may be applicable to other architectures for similar
      reasons.
      
      No attempt is made to provide ESR_ELx to userspace in the signal
      frame, since architectural limitations mean that it is unlikely to
      provide much diagnostic value, doesn't benefit existing software
      and would create ABI with no proven purpose.  The existing
      mechanism for passing it also has problems of its own which may
      result in the wrong value being passed to userspace due to
      interaction with mm faults.  The implied rework does not appear
      justified.
      Acked-by: default avatar"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
      Reported-by: default avatar"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      af4a81b9
    • Will Deacon's avatar
      Merge branch 'siginfo-next' of... · 4c0ca49e
      Will Deacon authored
      Merge branch 'siginfo-next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace into aarch64/for-next/core
      
      Pull in pending siginfo changes from Eric Biederman as we depend on
      the definition of FPE_FLTUNK for cleaning up our floating-point exception
      signal delivery (which is currently broken and using FPE_FIXME).
      4c0ca49e
  5. 19 Mar, 2018 3 commits