Re: [PATCH 7/8] arm64: Refactor sysinstr exception handling

[Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>]

On 22/08/16 13:53, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 02:10:31PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> Right now we trap some of the user space data cache operations
>> based on a few Errata (ARM 819472, 826319, 827319 and 824069).
>> We need to trap userspace access to CTR_EL0, if we detect mismatched
>> cache line size. Since both these traps share the EC, refactor
>> the handler a little bit to make it a bit more reader friendly.
>>
>> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c    | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>  2 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
>> index f772e15..2a8f6c3 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/esr.h
>> @@ -109,6 +109,54 @@
>>  	((ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64 << ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT) | ESR_ELx_IL |	\
>>  	 ((imm) & 0xffff))
>>
>> +/* ISS field definitions for System instruction traps */
>
> Can you add a similar comment for the ESR_ELx_* encodings that we already
> have, please? Unfortunately, we've not namespaced things, so the
> data/instruction abort encodings are described as e.g. ESR_ELx_ISV.

Will do.


>> +#define ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_Op0_SHIFT	20
>> +#define ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_Op0_MASK	(UL(0x3) << ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_Op0_SHIFT)
>
> Inconsistent capitalisation in your macro naming (e.g. RT vs Op1). Maybe
> just stick to uppercase for #defines?

Sure

>> +
>> +#define ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_U_CACHE_OP_MASK	(ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_Op0_MASK | \
>> +						 ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_Op1_MASK | \
>> +						 ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_Op2_MASK | \
>> +						 ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_CRn_MASK | \
>> +						 ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_DIR_MASK)
>> +#define ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_U_CACHE_OP_VAL \
>> +				(ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_SYS_VAL(1, 3, 1, 7, 0) | \
>> +				 ESR_ELx_SYS64_ISS_DIR_WRITE)
>
> What is the _U_ for? Unified? User? If it's user, EL0 may be more
> appropriate.

Ok.
  


Thanks
Suzuki