Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: trusted_foundations: do not use naked
 function
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>, linux@armlinux.org.uk,
        ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, arnd@arndb.de
Cc:     nicolas.pitre@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        behanw@converseincode.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        Bernhard.Rosenkranzer@linaro.org, mka@chromium.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
References: <20180325180959.28008-1-stefan@agner.ch>
 <20180325180959.28008-4-stefan@agner.ch>
 <704c863a-0b5a-6396-d7da-f0ed17b7cca2@gmail.com>
 <263337af-7541-be9e-3db6-6cb987fd08fb@arm.com>
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=digetx@gmail.com; keydata=
 xsBNBFpX5TwBCADQhg+lBnTunWSPbP5I+rM9q6EKPm5fu2RbqyVAh/W3fRvLyghdb58Yrmjm
 KpDYUhBIZvAQoFLEL1IPAgJBtmPvemO1XUGPxfYNh/3BlcDFBAgERrI3BfA/6pk7SAFn8u84
 p+J1TW4rrPYcusfs44abJrn8CH0GZKt2AZIsGbGQ79O2HHXKHr9V95ZEPWH5AR0UtL6wxg6o
 O56UNG3rIzSL5getRDQW3yCtjcqM44mz6GPhSE2sxNgqureAbnzvr4/93ndOHtQUXPzzTrYB
 z/WqLGhPdx5Ouzn0Q0kSVCQiqeExlcQ7i7aKRRrELz/5/IXbCo2O+53twlX8xOps9iMfABEB
 AAHNIkRtaXRyeSBPc2lwZW5rbyA8ZGlnZXR4QGdtYWlsLmNvbT7CwJQEEwEIAD4WIQSczHcO
 3uc4K1eb3yvTNNaPsNRzvAUCWlflPAIbAwUJA8JnAAULCQgHAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIX
 gAAKCRDTNNaPsNRzvFjTCACqAh1M9/YPq73/ai5h2ExDquTgJnjegL8KL2yHL3G+XINwzN5E
 nPI7esoYm+zVWDJbv3UuRqylpookLNSRA01yyvkaMcipB/B128UnqmUiGRqezj9QE20yIauo
 uHRuwHPE2q+UkfUhRX9iuOaEyQtZDiCa0myMjmRkJ+Z8ZetclEPG8dYZu47w04phuMlu1QAt
 a0gkZOaMKvXgj21ushALS6nYnvm7HiIPQXfnEXThartatRvFdmbG4PCn0IoICkQBizwJtXrL
 HEjELIFap0M8krVJlUoZTFaZnaZkGpUDWikeFtAuie2KuIxmVBYPM4X7pM3eP3AVvIPGS7EE
 UUFuzsBNBFpX5TwBCADFNDou220thijaLLGaQsebWjzc/gPRxMixIpk856MRyRaQin+IbGD6
 YskMb5ZSD3nS88LIKNfY4MMH0LwfYztI++ICG2vdFLkbBt78E+LqEa+kZ9072l4W5KO3mWQo
 +jMfxXbpgGlc7iuEReDgl8iyZ27r51kSW665CYvvu2YJhLqgdj6QM1lN2D1UnhEhkkU+pRAj
 1rJVOxdfJaQNQS4+204p3TrURovzNGkN/brqakpNIcqGOAGQqb8F0tuwwuP7ERq/BzDNkbdr
 qJOrVC/wkHRq1jfabQczWKf8MwYOvivR3HY8d3CpSQxmUXDtdOWfg0XGm1dxYnVfqPjuJaZt
 ABEBAAHCwHwEGAEIACYWIQSczHcO3uc4K1eb3yvTNNaPsNRzvAUCWlflPAIbDAUJA8JnAAAK
 CRDTNNaPsNRzvJzuB/9d+sxcwHbO8ZDcgaLX9N+bXFqN9fIRVmBUyWa+qqTSREA4uVAtYcRT
 lfPE2OQ7aMFxaYPwo+/z5SLpu8HcEhN/FG9uIkfYwK0mdCO0vgvlfvBJm4VHe7C6vyAeEPJQ
 DKbBvdgeqFqO+PsLkk2sawF/9sontMJ5iFfjNDj4UeAo4VsdlduTBZv5hHFvIbv/p7jKH6OT
 90FsgUSVbShh7SH5OzAcgqSy4kxuS1AHizWo6P3f9vei987LZWTyhuEuhJsOfivDsjKIq7qQ
 c5eR+JJtyLEA0Jt4cQGhpzHtWB0yB3XxXzHVa4QUp00BNVWyiJ/t9JHT4S5mdyLfcKm7ddc9
Message-ID: <f627177c-f813-9e10-ade5-c7654375639b@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:16:04 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <263337af-7541-be9e-3db6-6cb987fd08fb@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 27.03.2018 14:54, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 26/03/18 22:20, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 25.03.2018 21:09, Stefan Agner wrote:
>>> As documented in GCC naked functions should only use Basic asm
>>> syntax. The Extended asm or mixture of Basic asm and "C" code is
>>> not guaranteed. Currently this works because it was hard coded
>>> to follow and check GCC behavior for arguments and register
>>> placement.
>>>
>>> Furthermore with clang using parameters in Extended asm in a
>>> naked function is not supported:
>>>    arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c:47:10: error: parameter
>>>            references not allowed in naked functions
>>>                  : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
>>>                         ^
>>>
>>> Use a regular function to be more portable. This aligns also with
>>> the other smc call implementations e.g. in qcom_scm-32.c and
>>> bcm_kona_smc.c.
>>>
>>> Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>> Cc: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Keep stmfd/ldmfd to avoid potential ABI issues
>>>
>>>   arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c | 14 +++++++++-----
>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> index 3fb1b5a1dce9..689e6565abfc 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/firmware/trusted_foundations.c
>>> @@ -31,21 +31,25 @@
>>>     static unsigned long cpu_boot_addr;
>>>   -static void __naked tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
>>> +static void tf_generic_smc(u32 type, u32 arg1, u32 arg2)
>>>   {
>>> +    register u32 r0 asm("r0") = type;
>>> +    register u32 r1 asm("r1") = arg1;
>>> +    register u32 r2 asm("r2") = arg2;
>>> +
>>>       asm volatile(
>>>           ".arch_extension    sec\n\t"
>>> -        "stmfd    sp!, {r4 - r11, lr}\n\t"
>>> +        "stmfd    sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
>>>           __asmeq("%0", "r0")
>>>           __asmeq("%1", "r1")
>>>           __asmeq("%2", "r2")
>>>           "mov    r3, #0\n\t"
>>>           "mov    r4, #0\n\t"
>>>           "smc    #0\n\t"
>>> -        "ldmfd    sp!, {r4 - r11, pc}"
>>> +        "ldmfd    sp!, {r4 - r11}\n\t"
>>>           :
>>> -        : "r" (type), "r" (arg1), "r" (arg2)
>>> -        : "memory");
>>> +        : "r" (r0), "r" (r1), "r" (r2)
>>> +        : "memory", "r3", "r12", "lr");
>>
>> Although seems "lr" won't be affected by SMC invocation because it should be
>> banked and hence could be omitted entirely from the code. Maybe somebody could
>> confirm this.
> Strictly per the letter of the architecture, the SMC could be trapped to Hyp
> mode, and a hypervisor might clobber LR_usr in the process of forwarding the
> call to the firmware secure monitor (since Hyp doesn't have a banked LR of its
> own). Admittedly there are probably no real systems with the appropriate
> hardware/software combination to hit that, but on the other hand if this gets
> inlined where the compiler has already created a stack frame then an LR clobber
> is essentially free, so I reckon we're better off keeping it for reassurance.
> This isn't exactly a critical fast path anyway.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.