[PATCH RFC v1] arm64: Handle traps from accessing CNTVCT/CNTFRQ for CONFIG_COMPAT

Nicolin Chen nicoleotsuka at gmail.com
Wed Jan 17 15:39:43 PST 2018


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:35:08PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:41:56 -0800
> Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:03:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > 
> > > > So ignoring a condition for a Thumb instruction may cause its IT
> > > > scope shifting. For ARM mode, the only penalty could be two Rts
> > > > getting written -- which shouldn't corrupt userspace execution.
> > > > 
> > > > Please correct me if I am wrong or not thorough.  
> > > 
> > > Consider the following:
> > > 	
> > > 	mov	r0, #0
> > > 	mov	r1, #0
> > > 	cmp	r1, #3
> > > 	mrrceq	r0, r1, cntvct // simplified version
> > > 
> > > Oh look, you've corrupted r0 and r1, which should never have be
> > > changed. Whatever uses the content r0 and r1 after the mrrc will
> > > misbehave. How is that an acceptable behaviour? How do you expect
> > > userspace to cope with such a brain damage?
> > > 
> > > If you intend to emulate the CPU, you must emulate it fully, to the
> > > letter of the architecture. No ifs, no buts.  
> > 
> > Thanks for the explain. I see the point here.
> > 
> > I saw your version for arm64 compat doesn't check if (rt != 31)
> > as MRS handler does. Is there any reason for that?
> 
> Um, perhaps because it's *compat*? How do you envision an AArch32
> MR{R}C instruction targeting r31, exactly? ;)

I see. Thank you, Robin.



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list