lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:33:58PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > > On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > > Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to be
> > > > > enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the workaround in
> > > > > that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased and
> > > > submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on this
> > > > patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work on
> > > > this E1003 patch continues.
> > >
> > > The alternative is not enabling SW_PAN (at runtime) if this errata is
> > > present, along with a warning stating that hardware-PAN should be
> > > enabled in kconfig instead. Not sure what distributions will make of that
> > > though.
> >
> > The problem with this patch is that when ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is enabled
> > and in the absence of hardware PAN (or ARM64_PAN disabled),
> > cpu_do_switch_mm is no longer called for user process switching, so the
> > workaround is pretty much useless.
>
> Oh, I see what you mean now.
>
> > I'm ok with adding the Kconfig dependency below to
> > QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1003:
> >
> > depends on !ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN || ARM64_PAN
> >
> > together with a run-time warning if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is being used.
>
> That makes it look like hardware-PAN is the cause of the erratum.

With the right Kconfig comment we could make this clearer.

> Maybe
> just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> the erratum (which should never fire)?

You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
use the hw one.

--
Catalin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-01 18:51    [W:0.050 / U:2.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site