lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:00:24 +0100
From:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
	Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Nathan Lynch <Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
	"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clocksource: arch_timer: Allow the device tree to
 specify the physical timer

On 11/09/14 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
>>
>> * The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
>>   we don't want to add the complexity of hypervisor there.
>>
>> * The firmware isn't involved in SMP bringup or resume.
>>
>> * The ARCH timer come up with an uninitialized offset between the
>>   virtual and physical counters.  Each core gets a different random
>>   offset.
>>
>> On systems like the above, it doesn't make sense to use the virtual
>> counter.  There's nobody managing the offset and each time a core goes
>> down and comes back up it will get reinitialized to some other random
>> value.
> 
> You probably need to rephrase this slightly, as there *is* still a
> requirement on the hypervisor/firmware (actually, two!). See below.
> 
>> Let's add a property to the device tree to say that we shouldn't use
>> the virtual timer.  Firmware could potentially remove this property
>> before passing the device tree to the kernel if it really wants the
>> kernel to use a virtual timer.
>>
>> Note that it's been said that ARM64 (ARMv8) systems the firmware and
>> kernel really can't be architected as described above.  That means
>> using the physical timer like this really only makes sense for ARMv7
>> systems.
> 
> I'd go further: this only makes sense if you're booting in secure SVC
> mode.

If that's the case, what's the problem? Enter monitor mode, set SCR.NS
to one, nuke CNTVOFF, revert, job done.

What am I missing?

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ