lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 5/8] arm64: Fix incorrect irqflag restore for priority masking
From
Date
On 10/06/2019 12:36, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
> On 10/06/2019 08:49, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/06/2019 17:29, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 06/06/2019 10:31, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>> When using IRQ priority masking to disable interrupts, in order to deal
>>>> with the PSR.I state, local_irq_save() would convert the I bit into a
>>>> PMR value (GIC_PRIO_IRQOFF). This resulted in local_irq_restore()
>>>> potentially modifying the value of PMR in undesired location due to the
>>>> state of PSR.I upon flag saving [1].
>>>>
>>>> In an attempt to solve this issue in a less hackish manner, introduce
>>>> a bit (GIC_PRIO_IGNORE_PMR) for the PMR values that can represent
>>>> whether PSR.I is being used to disable interrupts, in which case it
>>>> takes precedence of the status of interrupt masking via PMR.
>>>>
>>>> GIC_PRIO_IGNORE_PMR is chosen such that (<pmr_value> |
>>>> GIC_PRIO_IGNORE_PMR) does not mask more interrupts than <pmr_value> as
>>>> some sections (e.g. arch_cpu_idle(), interrupt acknowledge path)
>>>> requires PMR not to mask interrupts that could be signaled to the
>>>> CPU when using only PSR.I.
>>>>
>>>
>>> s/GIC_PRIO_IGNORE_PMR/GIC_PRIO_PSR_I_SET/
>>>
>>>> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg716956.html
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: commit 4a503217ce37 ("arm64: irqflags: Use ICC_PMR_EL1 for interrupt masking")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
>>>> Reported-by: Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
>>>> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
>>>> Cc: Wei Li <liwei391@huawei.com>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Pouloze <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_gicv3.h | 4 ++-
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/daifflags.h | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h | 67 +++++++++++++++---------------------
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 7 ++--
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h | 10 ++++--
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 38 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +-
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 8 +++--
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 2 +-
>>>> 9 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)
>>>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h
>>>> index fbe1aba..b6f757f 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irqflags.h
>>>> @@ -67,43 +67,46 @@ static inline void arch_local_irq_disable(void)
>>>> */
>>>> static inline unsigned long arch_local_save_flags(void)
>>>> {
>>>> - unsigned long daif_bits;
>>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>>
>>>> - daif_bits = read_sysreg(daif);
>>>> -
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * The asm is logically equivalent to:
>>>> - *
>>>> - * if (system_uses_irq_prio_masking())
>>>> - * flags = (daif_bits & PSR_I_BIT) ?
>>>> - * GIC_PRIO_IRQOFF :
>>>> - * read_sysreg_s(SYS_ICC_PMR_EL1);
>>>> - * else
>>>> - * flags = daif_bits;
>>>> - */
>>>> asm volatile(ALTERNATIVE(
>>>> - "mov %0, %1\n"
>>>> - "nop\n"
>>>> - "nop",
>>>> - __mrs_s("%0", SYS_ICC_PMR_EL1)
>>>> - "ands %1, %1, " __stringify(PSR_I_BIT) "\n"
>>>> - "csel %0, %0, %2, eq",
>>>> - ARM64_HAS_IRQ_PRIO_MASKING)
>>>> - : "=&r" (flags), "+r" (daif_bits)
>>>> - : "r" ((unsigned long) GIC_PRIO_IRQOFF)
>>>> - : "cc", "memory");
>>>> + "mrs %0, daif",
>>>> + __mrs_s("%0", SYS_ICC_PMR_EL1),
>>>> + ARM64_HAS_IRQ_PRIO_MASKING)
>>>> + : "=&r" (flags)
>>>> + :
>>>> + : "memory");
>>>
>>> I think this is worth a comment here, as you're changing the semantics
>>> of arch_local_save_flags(). Maybe just indicating that the only thing
>>> this should be used for is to carry the interrupt state, and nothing else.
>>>
>>
>> Arguably, this is what gets called by local_save_flags() which is arch
>> independent and, as far as I understand, is only aware of the interrupt
>> state being contained in the flags (arch might wish to store more stuff
>> in it, but overall, generic code cannot rely on it).
>>
>> I'll still add a comment so that code directly calling arch_save_flags()
>> doesn't try to play with PSR.DA_F. (In such a cases it would be probably
>> clearer for them to do direct DAIF reads/writes IMO).
>>
>
> After checking, arch_local_save_flags() already has the following
> comment above it:
>
> /*
>
>
>
> * Save the current interrupt enable state.
>
>
>
> */
>
>
> Which suggests you shouldn't rely on having the value of debug state and
> other (it just happens to be there, maybe wrongfully...).
>
> And user checking the flags should use arch_irqs_disabled_flags() rather
> than "flags & PSR_I_BIT != 0".
>
> Also, those semantics where already changed when we introduced priority
> masking and included the PMR value in the irqflags.
>
> I'm not sure there is a lot more explanation to do in this patch in
> particular.

Fair enough. I guess that if someone is fiddling with the flags in
ungodly ways, they deserve to be bitten...

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-10 13:42    [W:0.063 / U:5.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site