On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 06:04:40PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 05:18:06PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > Most of sha256 code is based on crypto/sha256-glue.c, particularly using
> > non-neon version.
> >
> > Please note that we won't be able to re-use lib/mem*.S for purgatory
> > because unaligned memory access is not allowed in purgatory where mmu
> > is turned off.
> >
> > Since purgatory is not linked with the other part of kernel, care must be
> > taken of selecting an appropriate set of compiler options in order to
> > prevent undefined symbol references from being generated.
>
> What is the point in performing this check in the purgatory code, when
> this will presumably have been checked when the image is loaded?
Well, this is what x86 does :)
On powerpc, meanwhile, they don't have this check.
Maybe to avoid booting corrupted kernel after loading?
(loaded data are now protected by making them unmapped, though.)
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S b/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S
> > index bc4e6b3bf8a1..74d028b838bd 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/purgatory/entry.S
> > @@ -6,6 +6,11 @@
> > .text
> >
> > ENTRY(purgatory_start)
> > + adr x19, .Lstack
> > + mov sp, x19
> > +
> > + bl purgatory
> > +
> > /* Start new image. */
> > ldr x17, arm64_kernel_entry
> > ldr x0, arm64_dtb_addr
> > @@ -15,6 +20,14 @@ ENTRY(purgatory_start)
> > br x17
> > END(purgatory_start)
> >
> > +.ltorg
> > +
> > +.align 4
> > + .rept 256
> > + .quad 0
> > + .endr
> > +.Lstack:
> > +
> > .data
>
> Why is the stack in .text?
to call verify_sha256_digest() from asm
> Does this need to be zeroed?
No :)
> If it does, why not something like:
>
> .fill PURGATORY_STACK_SIZE 1, 0
>
> >
> > .align 3
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/purgatory/purgatory.c
> > b/arch/arm64/purgatory/purgatory.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..7fcbefa786bc
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/purgatory/purgatory.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> > +/*
> > + * purgatory: Runs between two kernels
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (c) 2017 Linaro Limited
> > + * Author: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.aka...@linaro.org>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include "sha256.h"
> > +
> > +void purgatory(void)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = verify_sha256_digest();
> > + if (ret) {
> > + /* loop forever */
> > + for (;;)
> > + ;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Surely we can do something slightly better than a busy loop? e.g.
> something like the __no_granule_support loop in head.s?
Okey.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256-core.S
> > b/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256-core.S
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..24f5ce25b61e
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256-core.S
> > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > +#include "../crypto/sha256-core.S_shipped"
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256.c b/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..5d20d81767e3
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/purgatory/sha256.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
> > +#include <linux/kexec.h>
> > +#include <linux/purgatory.h>
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Under KASAN, those are defined as un-instrumented version, __memxxx()
> > + */
> > +#undef memcmp
> > +#undef memcpy
> > +#undef memset
>
> This doesn't look like the right place for this undeffery; it looks
> rather fragile.
Yeah, I agree, but if not there, __memxxx() are used.
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/purgatory/string.c b/arch/arm64/purgatory/string.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..33233a210a65
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/purgatory/string.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> > +void *memcpy(void *dst, const void *src, size_t len)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> > + ((u8 *)dst)[i] = ((u8 *)src)[i];
> > +
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void *memset(void *dst, int c, size_t len)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> > + ((u8 *)dst)[i] = (u8)c;
> > +
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int memcmp(const void *src, const void *dst, size_t len)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
> > + if (*(char *)src != *(char *)dst)
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> How is the compiler prevented from "optimising" these into calls to
> themselves?
I don't get what you mean by "calls to themselves."
Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI
> I suspect these will need to be written in asm.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
