On 09/07/2020 05:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 05:34:23PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> HWCAP name arrays (hwcap_str, compat_hwcap_str, compat_hwcap2_str) that are
>> scanned for /proc/cpuinfo are detached from their bit definitions making it
>> vulnerable and difficult to correlate. It is also bit problematic because
>> during /proc/cpuinfo dump these arrays get traversed sequentially assuming
>> they reflect and match actual HWCAP bit sequence, to test various features
>> for a given CPU. This redefines name arrays per their HWCAP bit definitions
>> . It also warns after detecting any feature which is not expected on arm64.
>>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <a...@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
>> Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khand...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> This applies on 5.9-rc1
>>
>> Mark, since the patch has changed I have dropped your Acked-by: tag. Are you
>> happy to give a new one ?
>>
>> Changes in V3:
>>
>> - Moved name arrays to (arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c) to prevent a build 
>> warning
>> - Replaced string values with NULL for all compat features not possible on 
>> arm64
>> - Changed compat_hwcap_str[] iteration on size as some NULL values are 
>> expected
>> - Warn once after detecting any feature on arm64 that is not expected
>>
>> Changes in V2: (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11533755/)
>>
>> - Defined COMPAT_KERNEL_HWCAP[2] and updated the name arrays per Mark
>> - Updated the commit message as required
>>
>> Changes in V1: (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11532945/)
>>
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/hwcap.h |   9 +++
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c    | 172 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>>  2 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +    [KERNEL_HWCAP_FP]               = "fp",
>> +    [KERNEL_HWCAP_ASIMD]            = "asimd",
>> +    [KERNEL_HWCAP_EVTSTRM]          = "evtstrm",
>> +    [KERNEL_HWCAP_AES]              = "aes",
> 
> It would be nice if the cap and the string were generated by the same
> macro, along the lines of:
> 
> #define KERNEL_HWCAP(c)       [KERNEL_HWCAP_##c] = #c,
> 
> Does making the constants mixed case break anything, or is it just really
> churny to do?

Currently all existing HWCAP feature strings are lower case, above change
will make them into upper case instead. I could not find a method to force
convert #c into lower case constant strings in the macro definition. Would
not changing the HWCAP string case here, break user interface ?

> 
>> @@ -166,9 +167,18 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>              seq_puts(m, "Features\t:");
>>              if (compat) {
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>> -                    for (j = 0; compat_hwcap_str[j]; j++)
>> -                            if (compat_elf_hwcap & (1 << j))
>> +                    for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(compat_hwcap_str); j++) {
>> +                            if (compat_elf_hwcap & (1 << j)) {
>> +                                    /*
>> +                                     * Warn once if any feature should not
>> +                                     * have been present on arm64 platform.
>> +                                     */
>> +                                    if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!compat_hwcap_str[j]))
>> +                                            continue;
>> +
>>                                      seq_printf(m, " %s", 
>> compat_hwcap_str[j]);
>> +                            }
>> +                    }
>>  
>>                      for (j = 0; compat_hwcap2_str[j]; j++)
> 
> Hmm, I find this pretty confusing now as compat_hwcap_str is not NULL
> terminated and must be traversed with a loop bounded by ARRAY_SIZE(...),

Right. Thats because unlike before, it can now have some intermediate NULL
entries. Hence NULL sentinel based traversal wont be possible any more.


> whereas compat_hwcap2_str *is* NULL terminated and is traversed until you
> hit the sentinel.
> 
> I think hwcap_str, compat_hwcap_str and compat_hwcap2_str should be
> identical in this regard.

Sure, will make the traversal based on ARRAY_SIZE() for all three arrays
here, to make that uniform.

> 
> Will
> 

Reply via email to