All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
To: qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] target/arm: Use correct SP in M-profile exception return
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:09:05 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210520130905.2049-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org> (raw)

When an M-profile CPU is restoring registers from the stack on
exception return, the stack pointer to use is determined based on
bits in the magic exception return type value.  We were not getting
this logic entirely correct.

Whether we use one of the Secure stack pointers or one of the
Non-Secure stack pointers depends on the EXCRET.S bit.  However,
whether we use the MSP or the PSP then depends on the SPSEL bit in
either the CONTROL_S or CONTROL_NS register.  We were incorrectly
selecting MSP vs PSP based on the EXCRET.SPSEL bit.

(In the pseudocode this is in the PopStack() function, which calls
LookUpSp_with_security_mode() which in turn looks at the relevant
CONTROL.SPSEL bit.)

The buggy behaviour wasn't noticeable in most cases, because we write
EXCRET.SPSEL to the CONTROL.SPSEL bit for the S/NS register selected
by EXCRET.ES, so we only do the wrong thing when EXCRET.S and
EXCRET.ES are different.  This will happen when secure code takes a
secure exception, which then tail-chains to a non-secure exception
which finally returns to the original secure code.

Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
---
This was noticed by the Arm TF-M folks, who have a pending change
to their code which will run into the situation we mishandle.
---
 target/arm/m_helper.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/target/arm/m_helper.c b/target/arm/m_helper.c
index d63ae465e1e..eda74e55450 100644
--- a/target/arm/m_helper.c
+++ b/target/arm/m_helper.c
@@ -1597,10 +1597,11 @@ static void do_v7m_exception_exit(ARMCPU *cpu)
          * We use this limited C variable scope so we don't accidentally
          * use 'frame_sp_p' after we do something that makes it invalid.
          */
+        bool spsel = env->v7m.control[return_to_secure] & R_V7M_CONTROL_SPSEL_MASK;
         uint32_t *frame_sp_p = get_v7m_sp_ptr(env,
                                               return_to_secure,
                                               !return_to_handler,
-                                              return_to_sp_process);
+                                              spsel);
         uint32_t frameptr = *frame_sp_p;
         bool pop_ok = true;
         ARMMMUIdx mmu_idx;
-- 
2.20.1



             reply	other threads:[~2021-05-20 13:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-20 13:09 Peter Maydell [this message]
2021-05-24 13:40 ` Richard Henderson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210520130905.2049-1-peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --to=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
    --cc=qemu-arm@nongnu.org \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] target/arm: Use correct SP in M-profile exception return' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.