From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
ckadabi@codeaurora.org, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
marc.zyngier@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
jnair@caviumnetworks.com, dave.martin@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/20] arm64: capabilities: Change scope of VHE to Boot CPU feature
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:39:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180207103903.GC5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180131182807.32134-13-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 06:27:59PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> We expect all CPUs to be running at the same EL inside the kernel
> with or without VHE enabled and we have strict checks to ensure
> that any mismatch triggers a kernel panic. If VHE is enabled,
> we use the feature based on the boot CPU and all other CPUs
> should follow. This makes it a perfect candidate for a cpability
> based on the boot CPU, which should be matched by all the CPUs
> (both when is ON and OFF). This saves us some not-so-pretty
> hooks and special code, just for verifying the conflict.
>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 7 +++++++
> arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h | 6 ------
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 3 +--
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 38 -------------------------------------
> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 04161aac0f06..42292a0b93a4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -260,6 +260,13 @@ extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0;
> (ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU | \
> ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU)
>
> +/*
> + * Critical CPU feature used early in the boot based on the boot CPU.
> + * The feature should be matched by all booting CPU (both miss and hit
> + * cases).
> + */
> +#define ARM64_CPUCAP_CRITICAL_BOOT_CPU_FEATURE ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_BOOT_CPU
> +
> struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
> const char *desc;
> u16 capability;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
> index c5f89442785c..9d1e24e030b3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/virt.h
> @@ -102,12 +102,6 @@ static inline bool has_vhe(void)
> return false;
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_VHE
> -extern void verify_cpu_run_el(void);
> -#else
> -static inline void verify_cpu_run_el(void) {}
> -#endif
> -
> #endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
>
> #endif /* ! __ASM__VIRT_H */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 6d759f068de1..247d34ea6b5e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -982,7 +982,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
> {
> .desc = "Virtualization Host Extensions",
> .capability = ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN,
> - .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE,
> + .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_CRITICAL_BOOT_CPU_FEATURE,
> .matches = runs_at_el2,
> .cpu_enable = cpu_copy_el2regs,
> },
Could this feature block now be #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_VHE?
I don't think the lack of #ifdef breaks anything here though, because
in that case head.S drops down to EL1 runs_at_el2() returns false on
all CPUs.
> @@ -1322,7 +1322,6 @@ static bool verify_local_cpu_caps(u16 scope_mask)
> */
> static void check_early_cpu_features(void)
> {
> - verify_cpu_run_el();
> verify_cpu_asid_bits();
> /*
> * Early features are used by the kernel already. If there
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> index 5cef11450183..f3e2e3aec0b0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -85,43 +85,6 @@ enum ipi_msg_type {
> IPI_WAKEUP
> };
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_VHE
> -
> -/* Whether the boot CPU is running in HYP mode or not*/
> -static bool boot_cpu_hyp_mode;
> -
> -static inline void save_boot_cpu_run_el(void)
> -{
> - boot_cpu_hyp_mode = is_kernel_in_hyp_mode();
> -}
> -
> -static inline bool is_boot_cpu_in_hyp_mode(void)
> -{
> - return boot_cpu_hyp_mode;
> -}
> -
> -/*
> - * Verify that a secondary CPU is running the kernel at the same
> - * EL as that of the boot CPU.
> - */
> -void verify_cpu_run_el(void)
> -{
> - bool in_el2 = is_kernel_in_hyp_mode();
> - bool boot_cpu_el2 = is_boot_cpu_in_hyp_mode();
> -
> - if (in_el2 ^ boot_cpu_el2) {
> - pr_crit("CPU%d: mismatched Exception Level(EL%d) with boot CPU(EL%d)\n",
> - smp_processor_id(),
> - in_el2 ? 2 : 1,
> - boot_cpu_el2 ? 2 : 1);
> - cpu_panic_kernel();
> - }
> -}
> -
> -#else
> -static inline void save_boot_cpu_run_el(void) {}
> -#endif
> -
> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> static int op_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu);
> #else
> @@ -447,7 +410,6 @@ void __init smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
> */
> jump_label_init();
> cpuinfo_store_boot_cpu();
> - save_boot_cpu_run_el();
Nice diffstat, assuming I didn't miss anything.
Cheers
---Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-07 10:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-31 18:27 [PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: Rework cpu capabilities handling Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 01/20] arm64: capabilities: Update prototype for enable call back Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 11:23 ` Robin Murphy
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 02/20] arm64: capabilities: Move errata work around check on boot CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 14:47 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 03/20] arm64: capabilities: Move errata processing code Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 04/20] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 15:16 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 15:39 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 05/20] arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 11:31 ` Robin Murphy
2018-02-07 16:53 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 06/20] arm64: capabilities: Unify the verification Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 16:56 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 07/20] arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given mask Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 17:01 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 08/20] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:10 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Allow flexibility in scope Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 16:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Allow flexibility in scope Dave Martin
2018-02-08 16:31 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 17:32 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-09 12:16 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for grouping features and errata work arounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: capabilities: Split the processing of " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: capabilities: Allow features based on local CPU scope Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:19 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 14:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Allow flexibility in scope Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 09/20] arm64: capabilities: Introduce weak features based on local CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 10/20] arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI detection to boot-time CPUs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 18:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 11:05 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 11/20] arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 18:34 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 11:35 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 11:43 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 12/20] arm64: capabilities: Change scope of VHE to Boot CPU feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 13/20] arm64: capabilities: Clean up midr range helpers Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 14/20] arm64: Add helpers for checking CPU MIDR against a range Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 15/20] arm64: capabilities: Add support for checks based on a list of MIDRs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 16/20] arm64: Handle shared capability entries Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 10:53 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:01 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:32 ` Robin Murphy
2018-02-09 10:05 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:04 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:05 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 17/20] arm64: bp hardening: Allow late CPUs to enable work around Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39 ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:19 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2018-02-08 16:58 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 17:59 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 17:59 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 18/20] arm64: Add MIDR encoding for Arm Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 19/20] arm64: Delay enabling hardware DBM feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:40 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 20/20] arm64: Add work around for Arm Cortex-A55 Erratum 1024718 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:40 ` Dave Martin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180207103903.GC5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ckadabi@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jnair@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®