Re: [stable:PATCH v5.4.184 00/22] arm64: Mitigate spectre style branch history side channels

From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [stable:PATCH v5.4.184 00/22] arm64: Mitigate spectre style branch history side channels
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 11:41:07 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YjIFE8Abn7XI+4yW@sashalap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220315182415.3900464-1-james.morse@arm.com>

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 06:23:53PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
>Hi Greg,
>
>Here is the state of the current v5.4 backport. Now that the 32bit
>code has been merged, it doesn't conflict when KVM's shared 32bit/64bit
>code needs to use these constants.
>
>I've fixed the two issues that were reported against the v5.10 backport.
>
>I had a go at bringing all the pre-requisites in to add proton-pack.c
>to v5.4. Its currently 39 patches:
>https://git.gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-jm.git /bhb/alternative_backport/UNTESTED/v5.4.183
>(or for web browsers:
>https://gitlab.arm.com/linux-arm/linux-jm/-/commits/bhb/alternative_backport/UNTESTED/v5.4.183/
>)

I've queued it up.

>I've not managed to bring b881cdce77b4 "KVM: arm64: Allocate hyp vectors
>statically" in, as that depends on the hypervisor's per-cpu support. Its
>this patch that means those 'smccc_wa' templates are needed.
>I estimate it would be 60 patches in total if we go this way, I don't
>think its a good idea:
>All this still has to work around 541ad0150ca4 ("arm: Remove 32bit KVM
>host support") and 9ed24f4b712b ("KVM: arm64: Move virt/kvm/arm to
>arch/arm64") being missing.
>I think this approach creates more problems than it solves as the
>files have to be in different places because of 32bit. It also creates
>a significantly larger testing problem: I'm not looking forward to
>working out how to test KVM guest migration over the variant-4 KVM ABI
>changes in 29e8910a566a.

I think that the workaround you mention later on for this issue makes
sense cost/benefit-wise.

>This version of the backport still adds the mitigation management code
>to cpu_errata.c, because that is where this stuff lived in v5.4.
>
>If you prefer, I can try adding proton-pack.c as a new empty file.
>I think this would only confuse matters as the line-numbers would
>never match, and there is an interaction with the spectre-v2 mitigations
>that live in cpu_errata.c.
>
>There is one patch not present in mainline 'KVM: arm64: Add templtes for
>BHB mitigation sequences'.

Thank you!

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel