Re: [PATCH v0] RISC-V: Use Zkr to seed KASLR base address

[Deepak Gupta]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 01:47:40PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 11:14:49AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > Hi Conor,
> >
> > On 31/05/2024 19:31, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:23:27PM -0400, Jesse Taube wrote:
> > > > Dectect the Zkr extension and use it to seed the kernel base address.
> > > >
> > > > Detection of the extension can not be done in the typical fashion, as
> > > > this is very early in the boot process. Instead, add a trap handler
> > > > and run it to see if the extension is present.
> > > You can't rely on the lack of a trap meaning that Zkr is present unless
> > > you know that the platform implements Ssstrict. The CSR with that number
> > > could do anything if not Ssstrict compliant, so this approach gets a
> > > nak from me. Unfortunately, Ssstrict doesn't provide a way to detect
> > > it, so you're stuck with getting that information from firmware.
> >
> >
> > FYI, this patch is my idea, so I'm the one to blame here :)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > For DT systems, you can actually parse the DT in the pi, we do it to get
> > > the kaslr seed if present, so you can actually check for Zkr. With ACPI
> > > I have no idea how you can get that information, I amn't an ACPI-ist.
> >
> >
> > I took a look at how to access ACPI tables this early when implementing the
> > Zabha/Zacas patches, but it seems not possible.
> >
> > But I'll look into this more, this is not the first time we need the
> > extensions list very early and since we have no way to detect the presence
> > of an extension at runtime, something needs to be done.
>
> Aye, having remembered that reading CSR_SEED could have side-effects on a
> system with non-conforming extensions, it'd be good to see if we can
> actually do this via detection on ACPI - especially for some other
> extensions that we may need to turn on very early (I forget which ones we
> talked about this before for). I didn't arm64 do anything with ACPI in the
> pi code, is the code arch/x86/boot/compressed run at an equivilent-ish point
> in boot?

cc: +Clement and Atish

I don't know all the details but on first glance it seems like instead of ACPI,
may be FWFT is a better place for discovery ?
https://lists.riscv.org/g/tech-prs/topic/patch_v12_add_firmware/106479571

Supervisor could query if Sstrict is implemented and then it can check for
lack of trap on CSR_SEED or straight-away check for presence of Zkr.