Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 161
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 29 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  3. 12 10月, 2019 11 次提交
  5. 31 5月, 2019 1 次提交
  7. 12 7月, 2018 1 次提交
  9. 06 7月, 2018 2 次提交
    • W
      arm64: errata: Don't define type field twice for arm64_errata[] entries · 178909a6
      由 Will Deacon 提交于 
      The ERRATA_MIDR_REV_RANGE macro assigns ARM64_CPUCAP_LOCAL_CPU_ERRATUM
to the '.type' field of the 'struct arm64_cpu_capabilities', so there's
no need to assign it explicitly as well.
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      178909a6
    • W
      arm64: IPI each CPU after invalidating the I-cache for kernel mappings · 3b8c9f1c
      由 Will Deacon 提交于 
      When invalidating the instruction cache for a kernel mapping via
flush_icache_range(), it is also necessary to flush the pipeline for
other CPUs so that instructions fetched into the pipeline before the
I-cache invalidation are discarded. For example, if module 'foo' is
unloaded and then module 'bar' is loaded into the same area of memory,
a CPU could end up executing instructions from 'foo' when branching into
'bar' if these instructions were fetched into the pipeline before 'foo'
was unloaded.

Whilst this is highly unlikely to occur in practice, particularly as
any exception acts as a context-synchronizing operation, following the
letter of the architecture requires us to execute an ISB on each CPU
in order for the new instruction stream to be visible.
Acked-by: NCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      3b8c9f1c
  11. 05 7月, 2018 2 次提交
    • S
      arm64: Handle mismatched cache type · 314d53d2
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      Track mismatches in the cache type register (CTR_EL0), other
than the D/I min line sizes and trap user accesses if there are any.

Fixes: be68a8aa ("arm64: cpufeature: Fix CTR_EL0 field definitions")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      314d53d2
    • S
      arm64: Fix mismatched cache line size detection · 4c4a39dd
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      If there is a mismatch in the I/D min line size, we must
always use the system wide safe value both in applications
and in the kernel, while performing cache operations. However,
we have been checking more bits than just the min line sizes,
which triggers false negatives. We may need to trap the user
accesses in such cases, but not necessarily patch the kernel.

This patch fixes the check to do the right thing as advertised.
A new capability will be added to check mismatches in other
fields and ensure we trap the CTR accesses.

Fixes: be68a8aa ("arm64: cpufeature: Fix CTR_EL0 field definitions")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Reported-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      4c4a39dd
  13. 05 6月, 2018 1 次提交
    • A
      arm64: cpu_errata: include required headers · 94a5d879
      由 Arnd Bergmann 提交于 
      Without including psci.h and arm-smccc.h, we now get a build failure in
some configurations:

arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c: In function 'arm64_update_smccc_conduit':
arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c:278:10: error: 'psci_ops' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'sysfs_ops'?

arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c: In function 'arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation':
arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c:311:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'arm_smccc_1_1_hvc' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   arm_smccc_1_1_hvc(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2, state, NULL);
Signed-off-by: NArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: NCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
      94a5d879
  15. 01 6月, 2018 6 次提交
  17. 09 5月, 2018 1 次提交
  19. 12 4月, 2018 4 次提交
  21. 28 3月, 2018 2 次提交
  23. 27 3月, 2018 8 次提交
    • W
      arm64: cpufeature: Avoid warnings due to unused symbols · 12eb3691
      由 Will Deacon 提交于 
      An allnoconfig build complains about unused symbols due to functions
that are called via conditional cpufeature and cpu_errata table entries.

Annotate these as __maybe_unused if they are likely to be generic, or
predicate their compilation on the same option as the table entry if
they are specific to a given alternative.
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      12eb3691
    • S
      arm64: capabilities: Handle shared entries · ba7d9233
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated
actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the
same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same
capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the
cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the
detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates
other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap.

This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations
of a capability by maintaining list of matches + cpu_enable callbacks.
To avoid complicating the prototypes for the "matches()", we use
arm64_cpu_capabilities maintain the list and we ignore all the other
fields except the matches & cpu_enable.

This ensures :

 1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects
 2) Action is only taken for the entries that "matches".

This avoids explicit checks in the cpu_enable() take some action.
The only constraint here is that, all the entries should have the
same "type" (i.e, scope and conflict rules).

If a cpu_enable() method is associated with multiple matches for a
single capability, care should be taken that either the match criteria
are mutually exclusive, or that the method is robust against being
called multiple times.

This also reverts the changes introduced by commit 67948af4
("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a capability").

Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      ba7d9233
    • S
      arm64: capabilities: Add support for checks based on a list of MIDRs · be5b2998
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      Add helpers for detecting an errata on list of midr ranges
of affected CPUs, with the same work around.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      be5b2998
    • S
      arm64: Add helpers for checking CPU MIDR against a range · 1df31050
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      Add helpers for checking if the given CPU midr falls in a range
of variants/revisions for a given model.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      1df31050
    • S
      arm64: capabilities: Clean up midr range helpers · 5e7951ce
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      We are about to introduce generic MIDR range helpers. Clean
up the existing helpers in erratum handling, preparing them
to use generic version.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      5e7951ce
    • S
      arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU · 5b4747c5
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are
known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()).
Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we
could have the following combinations of conflict.

	x-----------------------------x
	| Type  | System   | Late CPU |
	|-----------------------------|
	|  a    |   y      |    n     |
	|-----------------------------|
	|  b    |   n      |    y     |
	x-----------------------------x

Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the
system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for
all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain
filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as
long as the system already enables it.

Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated
after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here,
yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too
late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc).

Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled.

 ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability
 ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability.

Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and
the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      5b4747c5
    • S
      arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities · 143ba05d
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed
to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which
include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities
have some properties that decide how they should be treated :

 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either :
    - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)
	Or
    - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM)

 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the
  system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or
  not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code.
  Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all
  the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps,
  which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI)
  and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought
  up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability.

 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked
  against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via
  verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability
  on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations
  of conflict.

	x-----------------------------x
	| Type	| System   | Late CPU |
	------------------------------|
	|  a    |   y      |    n     |
	------------------------------|
	|  b    |   n      |    y     |
	x-----------------------------x

  Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the
  system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for
  all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain
  filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as
  long as the system already enables it.

  Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some
  work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features.
  Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we
  are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs
  etc).

So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability.
And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly,
we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover
errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step
to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above.

We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a
capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability.

As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated.

Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      143ba05d
    • S
      arm64: capabilities: Move errata processing code · 1e89baed
      由 Suzuki K Poulose 提交于 
      We have errata work around processing code in cpu_errata.c,
which calls back into helpers defined in cpufeature.c. Now
that we are going to make the handling of capabilities
generic, by adding the information to each capability,
move the errata work around specific processing code.
No functional changes.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: NDave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NSuzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
      1e89baed