summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2016-11-21arm64: Factor out PAN enabling/disabling into separate uaccess_* macrosCatalin Marinas
This patch moves the directly coded alternatives for turning PAN on/off into separate uaccess_{enable,disable} macros or functions. The asm macros take a few arguments which will be used in subsequent patches. Note that any (unlikely) access that the compiler might generate between uaccess_enable() and uaccess_disable(), other than those explicitly specified by the user access code, will not be protected by PAN. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2016-02-24arm64: switch to relative exception tablesArd Biesheuvel
Instead of using absolute addresses for both the exception location and the fixup, use offsets relative to the exception table entry values. Not only does this cut the size of the exception table in half, it is also a prerequisite for KASLR, since absolute exception table entries are subject to dynamic relocation, which is incompatible with the sorting of the exception table that occurs at build time. This patch also introduces the _ASM_EXTABLE preprocessor macro (which exists on x86 as well) and its _asm_extable assembly counterpart, as shorthands to emit exception table entries. Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2016-02-02arm64: futex.h: Add missing PAN togglingJames Morse
futex.h's futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic() does not use the __futex_atomic_op() macro and needs its own PAN toggling. This was missed when the feature was implemented. Fixes: 338d4f49d6f ("arm64: kernel: Add support for Privileged Access Never") Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2015-07-27arm64: atomics: prefetch the destination word for write prior to stxrWill Deacon
The cost of changing a cacheline from shared to exclusive state can be significant, especially when this is triggered by an exclusive store, since it may result in having to retry the transaction. This patch makes use of prfm to prefetch cachelines for write prior to ldxr/stxr loops when using the ll/sc atomic routines. Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2015-07-27arm64: kernel: Add support for Privileged Access NeverJames Morse
'Privileged Access Never' is a new arm8.1 feature which prevents privileged code from accessing any virtual address where read or write access is also permitted at EL0. This patch enables the PAN feature on all CPUs, and modifies {get,put}_user helpers temporarily to permit access. This will catch kernel bugs where user memory is accessed directly. 'Unprivileged loads and stores' using ldtrb et al are unaffected by PAN. Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> [will: use ALTERNATIVE in asm and tidy up pan_enable check] Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2015-05-19sched/preempt, futex: Update comments to clarify that preemption doesn't ↵David Hildenbrand
have to be disabled As arm64 and arc have no special implementations for !CONFIG_SMP, mutual exclusion doesn't seem to rely on preemption. Let's make it clear in the comments that preemption doesn't have to be disabled when accessing user space in the futex code, so we can remove preempt_disable() from pagefault_disable(). Reviewed-and-tested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: David.Laight@ACULAB.COM Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: airlied@linux.ie Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org Cc: bigeasy@linutronix.de Cc: borntraeger@de.ibm.com Cc: daniel.vetter@intel.com Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Cc: hocko@suse.cz Cc: hughd@google.com Cc: mst@redhat.com Cc: paulus@samba.org Cc: ralf@linux-mips.org Cc: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com Cc: yang.shi@windriver.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1431359540-32227-13-git-send-email-dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2014-02-07arm64: asm: remove redundant "cc" clobbersWill Deacon
cbnz/tbnz don't update the condition flags, so remove the "cc" clobbers from inline asm blocks that only use these instructions to implement conditional branches. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2014-02-07arm64: atomics: fix use of acquire + release for full barrier semanticsWill Deacon
Linux requires a number of atomic operations to provide full barrier semantics, that is no memory accesses after the operation can be observed before any accesses up to and including the operation in program order. On arm64, these operations have been incorrectly implemented as follows: // A, B, C are independent memory locations <Access [A]> // atomic_op (B) 1: ldaxr x0, [B] // Exclusive load with acquire <op(B)> stlxr w1, x0, [B] // Exclusive store with release cbnz w1, 1b <Access [C]> The assumption here being that two half barriers are equivalent to a full barrier, so the only permitted ordering would be A -> B -> C (where B is the atomic operation involving both a load and a store). Unfortunately, this is not the case by the letter of the architecture and, in fact, the accesses to A and C are permitted to pass their nearest half barrier resulting in orderings such as Bl -> A -> C -> Bs or Bl -> C -> A -> Bs (where Bl is the load-acquire on B and Bs is the store-release on B). This is a clear violation of the full barrier requirement. The simple way to fix this is to implement the same algorithm as ARMv7 using explicit barriers: <Access [A]> // atomic_op (B) dmb ish // Full barrier 1: ldxr x0, [B] // Exclusive load <op(B)> stxr w1, x0, [B] // Exclusive store cbnz w1, 1b dmb ish // Full barrier <Access [C]> but this has the undesirable effect of introducing *two* full barrier instructions. A better approach is actually the following, non-intuitive sequence: <Access [A]> // atomic_op (B) 1: ldxr x0, [B] // Exclusive load <op(B)> stlxr w1, x0, [B] // Exclusive store with release cbnz w1, 1b dmb ish // Full barrier <Access [C]> The simple observations here are: - The dmb ensures that no subsequent accesses (e.g. the access to C) can enter or pass the atomic sequence. - The dmb also ensures that no prior accesses (e.g. the access to A) can pass the atomic sequence. - Therefore, no prior access can pass a subsequent access, or vice-versa (i.e. A is strictly ordered before C). - The stlxr ensures that no prior access can pass the store component of the atomic operation. The only tricky part remaining is the ordering between the ldxr and the access to A, since the absence of the first dmb means that we're now permitting re-ordering between the ldxr and any prior accesses. From an (arbitrary) observer's point of view, there are two scenarios: 1. We have observed the ldxr. This means that if we perform a store to [B], the ldxr will still return older data. If we can observe the ldxr, then we can potentially observe the permitted re-ordering with the access to A, which is clearly an issue when compared to the dmb variant of the code. Thankfully, the exclusive monitor will save us here since it will be cleared as a result of the store and the ldxr will retry. Notice that any use of a later memory observation to imply observation of the ldxr will also imply observation of the access to A, since the stlxr/dmb ensure strict ordering. 2. We have not observed the ldxr. This means we can perform a store and influence the later ldxr. However, that doesn't actually tell us anything about the access to [A], so we've not lost anything here either when compared to the dmb variant. This patch implements this solution for our barriered atomic operations, ensuring that we satisfy the full barrier requirements where they are needed. Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2013-12-19arm64: futex: ensure .fixup entries are sufficiently alignedWill Deacon
AArch64 instructions must be 4-byte aligned, so make sure this is true for the futex .fixup section. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2013-02-11arm64: atomics: fix grossly inconsistent asm constraints for exclusivesWill Deacon
Our uses of inline asm constraints for atomic operations are fairly wild and varied. We basically need to guarantee the following: 1. Any instructions with barrier implications (load-acquire/store-release) have a "memory" clobber 2. When performing exclusive accesses, the addresing mode is generated using the "Q" constraint 3. Atomic blocks which use the condition flags, have a "cc" clobber This patch addresses these concerns which, as well as fixing the semantics of the code, stops GCC complaining about impossible asm constraints. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2012-09-17arm64: Atomic operationsCatalin Marinas
This patch introduces the atomic, mutex and futex operations. Many atomic operations use the load-acquire and store-release operations which imply barriers, avoiding the need for explicit DMB. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>