[PATCH] arm64: Rework valid_user_regs

[Will Deacon]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 02:23:29PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 10 February 2016 at 12:31, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:58:53AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> I think we should err on the side of caution and nuke SS and IL for both
> >> native and compat too, although that seems a odds with the PSR_s mask.
> >> I wonder how relevant those PSR groups are in ARMv8...
> >
> > Ok.
> 
> If you nuke SS does that have any side effects in the case
> of (for instance) interactions between ptrace single step
> and ptrace syscall tracing? (ie do we ever end up in a situation
> where the ptracer can read a PSR for the debuggee which has
> SS set? if so then it should be able to write back the PSR
> it has just read without any bits being unset.)

I don't think so -- the signal dispatch logic "fast-forwards" the stepping
state machine so that we step into the signal handler, therefore the SS
bit should always be clear on entry afaict.

> Clearing IL should be ok, though it's pretty harmless for
> the user process to have IL set, it will just cause an exception.
> (Userspace can't end up with IL set unless we allow it to by
> doing an exception-return to EL0 with an IL-set SPSR.)

I was just musing about potential hardware bugs and thought it cleaner
/safer to clear those bits.

> > I couldn't spot anything in the ARM ARM regarding PSR bit groups,; I was
> > cargo-culting from the existing code. I'm more than happy to make the
> > PSR_* groups an aarch32/compat thing.
> 
> It's not clear to me that they make much sense for 32-bit either.
> NZCVQ are in PSR_f, but GE are in PSR_s. I and F are in
> PSR_c but A is in PSR_x. Presumably we need to leave them in
> the header file for back-compat with userspace, but I suspect
> any kernel code using them would benefit from using constants
> that more clearly reflect what it's doing.
> 
> (For instance, why do we clear NZCVQ on entry to a signal handler
> but not GE? Harmless, since the calling convention doesn't require
> any particular value for any of those flags on function entry,
> but an odd inconsistency.)

No idea. This whole area is pretty crufty, so we could probably clean
that up while we're here.

Will