Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: add the printing of tpidr_elx in __show_regs()

["Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>]

On 2022/4/28 21:13, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 08:03:50PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/4/28 19:07, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2022/4/28 18:21, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 02:24:08PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>>>>> Commit 7158627686f0 ("arm64: percpu: implement optimised pcpu access
>>>>> using tpidr_el1") and commit 6d99b68933fb ("arm64: alternatives: use
>>>>> tpidr_el2 on VHE hosts") use tpidr_elx to cache my_cpu_offset to optimize
>>>>> pcpu access. However, when performing reverse execution based on the
>>>>> registers and the memory contents in kdump, this information is sometimes
>>>>> required if there is a pcpu access.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> v1 --> v2:
>>>>> Directly print the tpidr_elx register of the current exception level.
>>>>> Avoid coupling with the implementation of 'my_cpu_offset'.
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
>>>>> index 5369e649fa79ff8..738932e6fa4e947 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
>>>>> @@ -216,6 +216,17 @@ void __show_regs(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>>  	show_regs_print_info(KERN_DEFAULT);
>>>>>  	print_pstate(regs);
>>>>>  
>>>>> +	switch (read_sysreg(CurrentEL)) {
>>>>
>>>> This should use is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() to detect if we're running at El2.
>>
>> static inline bool is_kernel_in_hyp_mode(void)
>> {
>>         return read_sysreg(CurrentEL) == CurrentEL_EL2;
>> }
>>
>> I think it's more intuitive to use "switch (read_sysreg(CurrentEL))".
> 
> No, I disagree with you here, sorry.

OK. Change it to the following form in v3?

+       if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
+               printk("tpidr_el2 : %016llx\n", read_sysreg(TPIDR_EL2));
+       else
+               printk("tpidr_el1 : %016llx\n", read_sysreg(TPIDR_EL1));

By the way, Is there a requirement on the case of register names?
I see some use TPIDR_EL1 and some use tpidr_el1.


> 
>>>>> +	case CurrentEL_EL1:
>>>>> +		printk("tpidr_el1 : %016llx\n", read_sysreg(TPIDR_EL1));
>>>>> +		break;
>>>>> +	case CurrentEL_EL2:
>>>>> +		printk("tpidr_el2 : %016llx\n", read_sysreg(TPIDR_EL2));
>>>>> +		break;
>>>>> +	default:
>>>>> +		break;
>>>>> +	}
>>>>
>>>> I think this path can be triggered directly from usermode, so we really
>>>> shouldn't be printing raw kernel virtual addresses here.
>>>
>>> I run echo c > /proc/sysrq-trigger and didn't trigger this path, but maybe
>>> there's another way. Analysis from the other side, except for the instruction
>>> address, all generic registers r0-r31 is output as raw. There's also an
>>> opportunity to contain the instruction address.
>>
>> On second thought, there seemed to be nothing wrong with it. The user need
>> to have capable() first. Then the address of the perpcu memory is not static,
>> the memory is dynamically allocated, exposing it is no different than exposing sp.
> 
> If show_unhandled_signals is set, then I think any fatal signal takes this
> path, no?

I looked at the implementation of arm64_show_signal(), and there must be a
chance to take this path. But last night, I came to my senses, the value
stored in tpidr is actually an offset, not an address. So there should be
no kernel address leakage problem.

> 
> Will
> .
> 

-- 
Regards,
  Zhen Lei

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