From: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] arm64: pac: Optimize kernel entry/exit key installation code paths
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:20:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMn1gO5DZ2qW1u9mMhqsC49xndb8WJFmwKX_Ua-5t-yj5jcDMg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c314e144-26d7-d80c-ce83-5fd597a8f772@arm.com>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:01 AM James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 12/02/2021 05:01, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 5:09 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:59:15PM -0800, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> >>> The kernel does not use any keys besides IA so we don't need to
> >>> install IB/DA/DB/GA on kernel exit if we arrange to install them
> >>> on task switch instead, which we can expect to happen an order of
> >>> magnitude less often.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore we can avoid installing the user IA in the case where the
> >>> user task has IA disabled and just leave the kernel IA installed. This
> >>> also lets us avoid needing to install IA on kernel entry.
> >>
> >> I've got to be honest, this makes me nervous in case there is a way for
> >> userspace to recover the kernel key even though EnIA is clear. Currently,
> >> EnIA doesn't affect XPAC* and PACGA instructions, and the architecture
>
> > For GA I would expect it to be controlled by a hypothetical EnGA, not
> > by EnIA (and I'm a bit surprised that there isn't an EnGA;
>
> PACGA is undefined if the CPU doesn't implement PAC, whereas PACIASP is a NOP if the CPU
> doesn't implement PAC.
>
> I think the reason from the SCTLR_ELx controls is to make unaware systems transform the
> instructions that were hints back into hints. (e.g. the AddPACIA psuedo code). This is
> needed on mismatched big-little systems, otherwise processes can't be migrated between them.
It's needed for more than that, see the history of my
PR_PAC_SET_ENABLED_KEYS patch, in particular [1].
> For the non-hint instructions, user-space needs to test the hwcap/id-register-emulation to
> know it can use these instructions, and the compiler shouldn't output them unconditionally.
Right, unless the target is known to support them.
> > doesn't it
> > mean that a userspace program running under an unaware kernel or
> > hypervisor may sign things using the GA from potentially another
> > hypervisor guest?)
>
> The hypervisor controls all this with HCR_EL2.API, which also traps PACGA et al.
> For the hypervisor its all or nothing.
> If the hypervisor is emulating a machine without PAC, it can emulate an undefined
> exception regardless of whether the CPU supports PAC or not.
>
> Does this match your reading?
I think that's right. So an unaware hypervisor would set API to 0 and
none of the guests would be able to use the authentication
instructions. Since it looks like API=0 would make the hint-space
instructions trap as well, I would imagine that a hypervisor would
need to emulate them as no-ops if it's emulating a machine without
PAC.
Peter
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg830889.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-12 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-30 6:59 [PATCH v6 1/3] arm64: mte: make the per-task SCTLR_EL1 field usable elsewhere Peter Collingbourne
2020-12-30 6:59 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] arm64: Introduce prctl(PR_PAC_{SET,GET}_ENABLED_KEYS) Peter Collingbourne
2021-01-26 12:49 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-12 4:52 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] arm64: Introduce prctl(PR_PAC_{SET, GET}_ENABLED_KEYS) Peter Collingbourne
2020-12-30 6:59 ` [PATCH v6 3/3] arm64: pac: Optimize kernel entry/exit key installation code paths Peter Collingbourne
2021-01-26 13:09 ` Will Deacon
2021-02-12 5:01 ` Peter Collingbourne
2021-02-12 11:01 ` James Morse
2021-02-12 18:20 ` Peter Collingbourne [this message]
2021-01-26 12:49 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] arm64: mte: make the per-task SCTLR_EL1 field usable elsewhere Will Deacon
2021-02-12 4:47 ` Peter Collingbourne
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=CAMn1gO5DZ2qW1u9mMhqsC49xndb8WJFmwKX_Ua-5t-yj5jcDMg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pcc@google.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=eugenis@google.com \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
--cc=vincenzo.frascino@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).