1. 06 Feb, 2018 29 commits
  2. 26 Jan, 2018 1 commit
  3. 23 Jan, 2018 4 commits
  4. 19 Jan, 2018 1 commit
  5. 16 Jan, 2018 5 commits
    • Catalin Marinas's avatar
      arm64: kpti: Fix the interaction between ASID switching and software PAN · 6b88a32c
      Catalin Marinas authored
      With ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN enabled, the exception entry code checks the
      active ASID to decide whether user access was enabled (non-zero ASID)
      when the exception was taken. On return from exception, if user access
      was previously disabled, it re-instates TTBR0_EL1 from the per-thread
      saved value (updated in switch_mm() or efi_set_pgd()).
      
      Commit 7655abb9 ("arm64: mm: Move ASID from TTBR0 to TTBR1") makes a
      TTBR0_EL1 + ASID switching non-atomic. Subsequently, commit 27a921e7
      ("arm64: mm: Fix and re-enable ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN") changes the
      __uaccess_ttbr0_disable() function and asm macro to first write the
      reserved TTBR0_EL1 followed by the ASID=0 update in TTBR1_EL1. If an
      exception occurs between these two, the exception return code will
      re-instate a valid TTBR0_EL1. Similar scenario can happen in
      cpu_switch_mm() between setting the reserved TTBR0_EL1 and the ASID
      update in cpu_do_switch_mm().
      
      This patch reverts the entry.S check for ASID == 0 to TTBR0_EL1 and
      disables the interrupts around the TTBR0_EL1 and ASID switching code in
      __uaccess_ttbr0_disable(). It also ensures that, when returning from the
      EFI runtime services, efi_set_pgd() doesn't leave a non-zero ASID in
      TTBR1_EL1 by using uaccess_ttbr0_{enable,disable}.
      
      The accesses to current_thread_info()->ttbr0 are updated to use
      READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE.
      
      As a safety measure, __uaccess_ttbr0_enable() always masks out any
      existing non-zero ASID TTBR1_EL1 before writing in the new ASID.
      
      Fixes: 27a921e7 ("arm64: mm: Fix and re-enable ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN")
      Acked-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      Reported-by: default avatarArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
      Tested-by: default avatarArd Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarJames Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
      Tested-by: default avatarJames Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
      Co-developed-by: default avatarMarc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      6b88a32c
    • Dongjiu Geng's avatar
      KVM: arm64: Emulate RAS error registers and set HCR_EL2's TERR & TEA · 558daf69
      Dongjiu Geng authored
      ARMv8.2 adds a new bit HCR_EL2.TEA which routes synchronous external
      aborts to EL2, and adds a trap control bit HCR_EL2.TERR which traps
      all Non-secure EL1&0 error record accesses to EL2.
      
      This patch enables the two bits for the guest OS, guaranteeing that
      KVM takes external aborts and traps attempts to access the physical
      error registers.
      
      ERRIDR_EL1 advertises the number of error records, we return
      zero meaning we can treat all the other registers as RAZ/WI too.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarDongjiu Geng <gengdongjiu@huawei.com>
      [removed specific emulation, use trap_raz_wi() directly for everything,
       rephrased parts of the commit message]
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJames Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarChristoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarMarc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      558daf69
    • James Morse's avatar
      KVM: arm64: Handle RAS SErrors from EL2 on guest exit · 0067df41
      James Morse authored
      We expect to have firmware-first handling of RAS SErrors, with errors
      notified via an APEI method. For systems without firmware-first, add
      some minimal handling to KVM.
      
      There are two ways KVM can take an SError due to a guest, either may be a
      RAS error: we exit the guest due to an SError routed to EL2 by HCR_EL2.AMO,
      or we take an SError from EL2 when we unmask PSTATE.A from __guest_exit.
      
      The current SError from EL2 code unmasks SError and tries to fence any
      pending SError into a single instruction window. It then leaves SError
      unmasked.
      
      With the v8.2 RAS Extensions we may take an SError for a 'corrected'
      error, but KVM is only able to handle SError from EL2 if they occur
      during this single instruction window...
      
      The RAS Extensions give us a new instruction to synchronise and
      consume SErrors. The RAS Extensions document (ARM DDI0587),
      '2.4.1 ESB and Unrecoverable errors' describes ESB as synchronising
      SError interrupts generated by 'instructions, translation table walks,
      hardware updates to the translation tables, and instruction fetches on
      the same PE'. This makes ESB equivalent to KVMs existing
      'dsb, mrs-daifclr, isb' sequence.
      
      Use the alternatives to synchronise and consume any SError using ESB
      instead of unmasking and taking the SError. Set ARM_EXIT_WITH_SERROR_BIT
      in the exit_code so that we can restart the vcpu if it turns out this
      SError has no impact on the vcpu.
      Reviewed-by: default avatarMarc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJames Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      0067df41
    • James Morse's avatar
      KVM: arm64: Handle RAS SErrors from EL1 on guest exit · 3368bd80
      James Morse authored
      We expect to have firmware-first handling of RAS SErrors, with errors
      notified via an APEI method. For systems without firmware-first, add
      some minimal handling to KVM.
      
      There are two ways KVM can take an SError due to a guest, either may be a
      RAS error: we exit the guest due to an SError routed to EL2 by HCR_EL2.AMO,
      or we take an SError from EL2 when we unmask PSTATE.A from __guest_exit.
      
      For SError that interrupt a guest and are routed to EL2 the existing
      behaviour is to inject an impdef SError into the guest.
      
      Add code to handle RAS SError based on the ESR. For uncontained and
      uncategorized errors arm64_is_fatal_ras_serror() will panic(), these
      errors compromise the host too. All other error types are contained:
      For the fatal errors the vCPU can't make progress, so we inject a virtual
      SError. We ignore contained errors where we can make progress as if
      we're lucky, we may not hit them again.
      
      If only some of the CPUs support RAS the guest will see the cpufeature
      sanitised version of the id registers, but we may still take RAS SError
      on this CPU. Move the SError handling out of handle_exit() into a new
      handler that runs before we can be preempted. This allows us to use
      this_cpu_has_cap(), via arm64_is_ras_serror().
      Acked-by: default avatarMarc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJames Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      3368bd80
    • James Morse's avatar
      KVM: arm64: Save ESR_EL2 on guest SError · c60590b5
      James Morse authored
      When we exit a guest due to an SError the vcpu fault info isn't updated
      with the ESR. Today this is only done for traps.
      
      The v8.2 RAS Extensions define ISS values for SError. Update the vcpu's
      fault_info with the ESR on SError so that handle_exit() can determine
      if this was a RAS SError and decode its severity.
      Acked-by: default avatarMarc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarJames Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
      Signed-off-by: default avatarCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      c60590b5