[PATCH 2/2] arm64: errata: Add Cortex-A520 speculative unprivileged load workaround

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 7:50 AM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 13:29:07 +0100,
> Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 5:18 AM Marc Zyngier <maz at misterjones.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2023-09-18 11:01, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 07:11:15AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > >> Implement the workaround for ARM Cortex-A520 erratum 2966298. On an
> > > >> affected Cortex-A520 core, a speculatively executed unprivileged load
> > > >> might leak data from a privileged level via a cache side channel.
> > > >>
> > > >> The workaround is to execute a TLBI before returning to EL0. A
> > > >> non-shareable TLBI to any address is sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > Can you elaborate at all on how this works, please? A TLBI addressing a
> > > > cache side channel feels weird (or is "cache" referring to some TLB
> > > > structures rather than e.g. the data cache here?).
> > > >
> > > > Assuming there's some vulnerable window between the speculative
> > > > unprivileged load and the completion of the TLBI, what prevents another
> > > > CPU from observing the side-channel during that time? Also, does the
> > > > TLBI need to be using the same ASID as the unprivileged load? If so,
> > > > then
> > > > a context-switch could widen the vulnerable window quite significantly.
> > >
> > > Another 'interesting' case is the KVM world switch. If EL0 is
> > > affected, what about EL1? Can such a data leak exist cross-EL1,
> > > or from EL2 to El1? Asking for a friend...
> >
> > I'm checking for a definitive answer, but page table isolation also
> > avoids the issue. Wouldn't these scenarios all be similar to page
> > table isolation in that the EL2 or prior EL1 context is unmapped?
>
> No, EL2 is always mapped, and we don't have anything like KPTI there.
>
> Maybe the saving grace is that EL2 and EL2&0 are different translation
> regimes from EL1&0, but there's nothing in the commit message that
> indicates it. As for EL1-to-EL1 leaks, it again completely depends on
> how the TLBs are tagged.

Different translation regimes are not affected. It must be the same
regime and same translation.

> You'd hope that having different VMIDs would save the bacon, but if
> you can leak EL1 translations into EL0, it means that the associated
> permission and/or tags do not contain all the required information...

The VMID is part of the equation. See here[1].

Rob

[1] https://developer.arm.com/documentation/102517/0001/Memory-management/Translation-Lookaside-Buffer-match-process?lang=en