[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH for-2.10 2/5] target/arm: Don't allow guest to mak
From: |
Peter Maydell |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH for-2.10 2/5] target/arm: Don't allow guest to make System space executable for M profile |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 09:51:39 +0100 |
On 28 July 2017 at 00:59, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 07/27/2017 07:59 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>
>> For an M profile v7PMSA, the system space (0xe0000000 - 0xffffffff) can
>> never be executable, even if the guest tries to set the MPU registers
>> up that way. Enforce this restriction.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
>> ---
>> target/arm/helper.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/arm/helper.c b/target/arm/helper.c
>> index ceef225..169c361 100644
>> --- a/target/arm/helper.c
>> +++ b/target/arm/helper.c
>> @@ -8251,6 +8251,14 @@ static inline bool is_ppb_region(CPUARMState *env,
>> uint32_t address)
>> extract32(address, 20, 12) == 0xe00;
>> }
>>
>
>
> I wonder if these should renamed pmsav7_is_ppb_region() and
> pmsav7_is_system_region().
Yeah, perhaps better; I'm never quite sure how much disambiguation
to put in to file-local function names. Maybe m_is_ppb_region()?
PPB and system region are M profile concepts, not PMSAv7 ones.
That doesn't seem any clearer than where we started though :-(
>> +static inline bool is_system_region(CPUARMState *env, uint32_t address)
>> +{
>> + /* True if address is in the M profile system region
>> + * 0xe0000000 - 0xffffffff
>> + */
>> + return arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_M) && extract32(address, 29, 3)
>> == 0x7;
>> +}
>> +
>> static bool get_phys_addr_pmsav7(CPUARMState *env, uint32_t address,
>> int access_type, ARMMMUIdx mmu_idx,
>> hwaddr *phys_ptr, int *prot, uint32_t
>> *fsr)
>> @@ -8354,6 +8362,12 @@ static bool get_phys_addr_pmsav7(CPUARMState *env,
>> uint32_t address,
>> get_phys_addr_pmsav7_default(env, mmu_idx, address, prot);
>> } else { /* a MPU hit! */
>> uint32_t ap = extract32(env->pmsav7.dracr[n], 8, 3);
>
>
> Maybe names access_perms/execute_never are easier to read..
Following existing practice in the LPAE code, we use the
field names that the architecture spec uses.
>> + uint32_t xn = extract32(env->pmsav7.dracr[n], 12, 1);
>> +
>
>
> clear MemManage exceptions:
>
> *fsr &= ~0xff;
>> + if (is_system_region(env, address)) {
>> + /* System space is always execute never */
>> + xn = 1;
>
>
> } else {
> xn = extract32(env->pmsav7.dracr[n], 12, 1);
>
>> + }
>> if (is_user) { /* User mode AP bit decoding */
>> switch (ap) {
>> @@ -8394,7 +8408,7 @@ static bool get_phys_addr_pmsav7(CPUARMState *env,
>> uint32_t address,
>> }
>> /* execute never */
>> - if (env->pmsav7.dracr[n] & (1 << 12)) {
>> + if (xn) {
>> *prot &= ~PAGE_EXEC;
>
>
> and here we now can set eXecuteNever violation:
>
> *fsr |= R_V7M_CFSR_IACCVIOL_MASK;
No, *fsr is not an M profile CFSR, it's an A/R profile short
descriptor format fault status value (because on R profile
that's what it will be used as, and M profile is using the
same MPU handling code here). We do the conversion in
arm_v7m_cpu_do_interrupt(), where we look at the exception_index
and the exception.fsr to identify what CFSR bits to set.
>> }
>> }
>>
> }
> *fsr = 0x00d; /* Permission fault */
>
> I don't understand this mask, I don't have bit [2] defined in my datashit,
> maybe it was expected to turn on exception Entry/Return which I have defined
> as bits 4 and 3 respectively, so I'd rather see here:
>
> *fsr |= R_V7M_CFSR_MUNSTKERR_MASK | R_V7M_CFSR_MSTKERR_MASK;
See above, *fsr isn't a v7m CFSR.
thanks
-- PMM
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH for-2.10 5/5] target/arm: Migrate MPU_RNR register state for M profile cores, (continued)
[Qemu-arm] [PATCH for-2.10 2/5] target/arm: Don't allow guest to make System space executable for M profile, Peter Maydell, 2017/07/27
[Qemu-arm] [PATCH for-2.10 1/5] target/arm: Don't do MPU lookups for addresses in M profile PPB region, Peter Maydell, 2017/07/27
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH for-2.10 0/5] M profile MPU bugfixes, Peter Maydell, 2017/07/31