Hi,
On 2/26/19 7:05 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
Return status based on ssbd_state and the arm64 SSBS feature. If
the mitigation is disabled, or the firmware isn't responding then
return the expected machine state based on a new blacklist of known
vulnerable cores.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.lin...@arm.com>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
index 5f5611d17dc1..e1b03f643799 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
@@ -279,6 +279,7 @@ static int detect_harden_bp_fw(void)
DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u64, arm64_ssbd_callback_required);
int ssbd_state __read_mostly = ARM64_SSBD_KERNEL;
+static bool __ssb_safe = true;
static const struct ssbd_options {
const char *str;
@@ -387,6 +388,9 @@ static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct
arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
WARN_ON(scope != SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU || preemptible());
+ if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), entry->midr_range_list))
+ __ssb_safe = false;
Is that the only place where we set it to false?
What about if firmware reports that (at least one core) is vulnerable?
+
if (this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_SSBS)) {
required = false;
goto out_printmsg;
@@ -420,6 +424,7 @@ static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct
arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
ssbd_state = ARM64_SSBD_UNKNOWN;
return false;
+ /* machines with mixed mitigation requirements must not return this */
case SMCCC_RET_NOT_REQUIRED:
pr_info_once("%s mitigation not required\n", entry->desc);
ssbd_state = ARM64_SSBD_MITIGATED;
@@ -475,6 +480,16 @@ static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct
arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
return required;
}
+/* known vulnerable cores */
+static const struct midr_range arm64_ssb_cpus[] = {
+ MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A57),
+ MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A72),
+ MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A73),
+ MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A75),
+ MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A76),
+ {},
+};
+
static void __maybe_unused
cpu_enable_cache_maint_trap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused)
{
@@ -770,6 +785,7 @@ const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_errata[] = {
.capability = ARM64_SSBD,
.type = ARM64_CPUCAP_LOCAL_CPU_ERRATUM,
.matches = has_ssbd_mitigation,
+ .midr_range_list = arm64_ssb_cpus,
},
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_1188873
{
@@ -808,3 +824,30 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_spectre_v2(struct device *dev, struct
device_attribute *attr,
return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n");
}
+
+ssize_t cpu_show_spec_store_bypass(struct device *dev,
+ struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
+{
+ /*
+ * Two assumptions: First, ssbd_state reflects the worse case
+ * for hetrogenous machines, and that if SSBS is supported its
heterogeneous
Cheers,
Andre.
+ * supported by all cores.
+ */
+ switch (ssbd_state) {
+ case ARM64_SSBD_MITIGATED:
+ return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n");
+
+ case ARM64_SSBD_KERNEL:
+ case ARM64_SSBD_FORCE_ENABLE:
+ if (cpus_have_cap(ARM64_SSBS))
+ return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n");
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD))
+ return sprintf(buf,
+ "Mitigation: Speculative Store Bypass disabled\n");
+ }
+
+ if (__ssb_safe)
+ return sprintf(buf, "Not affected\n");
+
+ return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n");
+}
