lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 02/14] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 01:09:41PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 11/24/20 15:50, Will Deacon wrote:
> > When confronted with a mixture of CPUs, some of which support 32-bit
>
> Confronted made me laugh, well chosen word! :D
>
> For some reason made me think of this :p
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJbXPzSPzxc&t=1m33s

I think it just about sums it up!

> > applications and others which don't, we quite sensibly treat the system
> > as 64-bit only for userspace and prevent execve() of 32-bit binaries.
> >
> > Unfortunately, some crazy folks have decided to build systems like this
> > with the intention of running 32-bit applications, so relax our
> > sanitisation logic to continue to advertise 32-bit support to userspace
> > on these systems and track the real 32-bit capable cores in a cpumask
> > instead. For now, the default behaviour remains but will be tied to
> > a command-line option in a later patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h | 2 +-
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 8 ++-
> > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 106 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 3 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> > index e7d98997c09c..e6f0eb4643a0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> > #define ARM64_ALT_PAN_NOT_UAO 10
> > #define ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN 11
> > #define ARM64_WORKAROUND_CAVIUM_27456 12
> > -#define ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0 13
> > +#define ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0_DO_NOT_USE 13
>
> nit: would UNUSED be better here? Worth adding a comment as to why too?

UNUSED sounds like you could delete it, but I'll add a comment.

> > #define ARM64_HARDEN_EL2_VECTORS 14
> > #define ARM64_HAS_CNP 15
> > #define ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD 16
>
> [...]
>
> > +static bool has_32bit_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> > +{
> > + if (!has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope))
> > + return allow_mismatched_32bit_el0;
>
> If a user passes the command line by mistake on a 64bit only system, this will
> return true. I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the impact is. I get
> lost in the features maze. It is nicely encapsulated, but hard to navigate for
> the none initiated :-)

The thing is, we can't generally detect a 64-bit-only system because a
32-bit-capable CPU could be hotplugged on late. So passing this option
just controls what the behaviour is at the point that the 32-bit-capable
CPU appears. If one doesn't appear, then there won't be a difference.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-01 18:00    [W:0.145 / U:2.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site