On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:01:27PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> To allow EL0 (and/or EL1) to use pointer authentication functionality,
> we must ensure that pointer authentication instructions and accesses to
> pointer authentication keys are not trapped to EL2 (where we will not be
> able to handle them).
> 
> This patch ensures that HCR_EL2 is configured appropriately when the
> kernel is booted at EL2. For non-VHE kernels we set HCR_EL2.{API,APK},
> ensuring that EL1 can access keys and permit EL0 use of instructions.
> For VHE kernels, EL2 access is controlled by EL3, and we need not set
> anything.
> 
> This does not enable support for KVM guests, since KVM manages HCR_EL2
> itself.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
> Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h |  2 ++
>  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S         | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h 
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> index 61d694c..c1267e8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@
>  #include <asm/types.h>
>  
>  /* Hyp Configuration Register (HCR) bits */
> +#define HCR_API              (UL(1) << 41)
> +#define HCR_APK              (UL(1) << 40)
>  #define HCR_E2H              (UL(1) << 34)
>  #define HCR_ID               (UL(1) << 33)
>  #define HCR_CD               (UL(1) << 32)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
> index 973df7d..8b8e8d7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
> @@ -412,10 +412,25 @@ CPU_LE( bic     x0, x0, #(1 << 25)      )       // 
> Clear the EE bit for EL2
>  
>       /* Hyp configuration. */
>       mov     x0, #HCR_RW                     // 64-bit EL1
> -     cbz     x2, set_hcr
> +     cbz     x2, 1f

Can we keep the label name here?  It still seems appropriate.

>       orr     x0, x0, #HCR_TGE                // Enable Host Extensions
>       orr     x0, x0, #HCR_E2H
> -set_hcr:
> +1:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_POINTER_AUTHENTICATION
> +     /*
> +      * Disable pointer authentication traps to EL2. The HCR_EL2.{APK,API}
> +      * bits exist iff at least one authentication mechanism is implemented.
> +      */
> +     mrs     x1, id_aa64isar1_el1
> +     mov_q   x3, ((0xf << ID_AA64ISAR1_GPI_SHIFT) | \
> +                  (0xf << ID_AA64ISAR1_GPA_SHIFT) | \
> +                  (0xf << ID_AA64ISAR1_API_SHIFT) | \
> +                  (0xf << ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_SHIFT))

Redundant outer (), I think -- mov_q protects its argument.

> +     and     x1, x1, x3
> +     cbz     x1, 1f

tst + b.eq?

> +     orr     x0, x0, #(HCR_APK | HCR_API)
> +1:
> +#endif
>       msr     hcr_el2, x0
>       isb

Cheers
---Dave

Reply via email to