[Uboot-stm32] [PATCH 0/7] arm: cache: cp15: don't map reserved region with no-map property
Ard Biesheuvel
ardb at kernel.org
Tue Oct 27 22:04:36 CET 2020
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 at 18:25, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 05:00:44PM +0000, Patrick DELAUNAY wrote:
> > Hi Ard,
> >
> > > From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>
> > > Sent: mercredi 7 octobre 2020 15:16
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 13:53, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On 10/7/20 1:23 PM, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > > > > My findings[1] back then were that U-Boot did set the eXecute Never
> > > > > bit only on OMAP, but not for other platforms. So I could imagine
> > > > > this being the root cause of Patrick's issues as well:
> > > >
> > > > Rereading my own link, my memory is a little less fuzzy: eXecute Never
> > > > was being set, but was without effect due Manager mode being set in the
> > > DACR:
> > > >
> > > > > The ARM Architecture Reference Manual notes[1]:
> > > > > > When using the Short-descriptor translation table format, the XN
> > > > > > attribute is not checked for domains marked as Manager.
> > > > > > Therefore, the system must not include read-sensitive memory in
> > > > > > domains marked as Manager, because the XN bit does not prevent
> > > > > > speculative fetches from a Manager domain.
> > > >
> > > > > To avoid speculative access to read-sensitive memory-mapped
> > > > > peripherals on ARMv7, we'll need U-Boot to use client domain
> > > > > permissions, so the XN bit can function.
> > > >
> > > > > This issue has come up before and was fixed in de63ac278
> > > > > ("ARM: mmu: Set domain permissions to client access") for OMAP2 only.
> > > > > It's equally applicable to all ARMv7-A platforms where caches are
> > > > > enabled.
> > > > > [1]: B3.7.2 - Execute-never restrictions on instruction fetching
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps,
> > > > Ahmad
> > > >
> > >
> > > It most definitely does, thanks a lot.
> > >
> > > U-boot's mmu_setup() currently sets DACR to manager for all domains, so this is
> > > broken for all non-LPAE configurations running on v7 CPUs (except OMAP and
> > > perhaps others that fixed it individually). This affects all device mappings: not just
> > > secure DRAM for OP-TEE, but any MMIO register for any peripheral that is
> > > mapped into the CPU's address space.
> > >
> > > Patrick, could you please check whether this fixes the issue as well?
> > >
> > > --- a/arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c
> > > @@ -202,9 +202,9 @@ static inline void mmu_setup(void)
> > > asm volatile("mcr p15, 0, %0, c2, c0, 0"
> > > : : "r" (gd->arch.tlb_addr) : "memory"); #endif
> > > - /* Set the access control to all-supervisor */
> > > + /* Set the access control to client (0b01) for each of the 16
> > > + domains */
> > > asm volatile("mcr p15, 0, %0, c3, c0, 0"
> > > - : : "r" (~0));
> > > + : : "r" (0x55555555));
> > >
> > > arm_init_domains();
> >
> > The test will take some time to be sure that solve my remaining issue because issue is not always reproductible.
> >
> > At fist chek, I wasn't sure of DACR bahavior, but I found in [1] the line :
> >
> > The XN attribute is not checked for domains marked as Manager. Read-sensitive memory must
> > not be included in domains marked as Manager, because the XN bit does not prevent prefetches
> > in these cases.
> >
> > So, I need to test your patch + DCACHE_OFF instead of INVALID
> > (to map with XN the OP-TEE region) in my patchset.
> >
> > FYI: I found the same DACR configuration is done in:
> > arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c:199
> >
> > [1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/ddi0406/b/System-Level-Architecture/Virtual-Memory-System-Architecture--VMSA-/Memory-access-control/The-Execute-Never--XN--attribute-and-instruction-prefetching?lang=en
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > For information:
> >
> > At the beginning I wasn't sure that the current DACR configuration is an issue because in found
> > in pseudo code of DDI0406B_arm_architecture_reference_manual_errata_markup_8_0.pdf
> >
> > B3.13.3 Address translation
> > if CheckDomain(tlbrecord.domain, mva, tlbrecord.sectionnotpage, iswrite) then
> > CheckPermission(tlbrecord.perms, mva, tlbrecord.sectionnotpage, iswrite, ispriv);
> >
> > B3.13.4 Domain checking
> > boolean CheckDomain(bits(4) domain, bits(32) mva, boolean sectionnotpage, boolean iswrite)
> > bitpos = 2*UInt(domain);
> > case DACR<bitpos+1:bitpos> of
> > when ‘00’ DataAbort(mva, domain, sectionnotpage, iswrite, DAbort_Domain);
> > when ‘01’ permissioncheck = TRUE;
> > when ‘10’ UNPREDICTABLE;
> > when ‘11’ permissioncheck = FALSE;
> > return permissioncheck;
> >
> > B2.4.8 Access permission checking
> > // CheckPermission()
> > // =================
> > CheckPermission(Permissions perms, bits(32) mva,
> > boolean sectionnotpage, bits(4) domain, boolean iswrite, boolean ispriv)
> >
> > if SCTLR.AFE == ‘0’ then
> > perms.ap<0> = ‘1’;
> > case perms.ap of
> > when ‘000’ abort = TRUE;
> > when ‘001’ abort = !ispriv;
> > when ‘010’ abort = !ispriv && iswrite;
> > when ‘011’ abort = FALSE;
> > when ‘100’ UNPREDICTABLE;
> > when ‘101’ abort = !ispriv || iswrite;
> > when ‘110’ abort = iswrite;
> > when ‘111’
> > if MemorySystemArchitecture() == MemArch_VMSA then
> > abort = iswrite
> > else
> > UNPREDICTABLE;
> > if abort then
> > DataAbort(mva, domain, sectionnotpage, iswrite, DAbort_Permission);
> > return;
> >
> > => it seens only the read/write permission is checked here (perms.ap)
> > => perms.xn is not used here
> >
> > access_control = DRACR[r];
> > perms.ap = access_control<10:8>;
> > perms.xn = access_control<12>;
> >
> > with AP[2:0], bits [10:8]
> > Access Permissions field. Indicates the read and write access permissions for unprivileged
> > and privileged accesses to the memory region.
> >
> > But now it is clear with [1]
>
> So, where did everything end up here? I specifically didn't grab this
> series as it sounded like there was concern the problem should be solved
> via another patch. Or would that be an in-addition-to? Thanks!
>
There are three different problems:
- ARMv7 non-LPAE uses the wrong domain settings
- no-map non-secure memory should not be mapped by u-boot
- secure world-only memory should not be described as memory in the device tree
So I think this series definitely needs a respin at the very least.
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list