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  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:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:49:50 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <>
To:	Sonny Rao <>
CC:	Catalin Marinas <>,
	Marc Zyngier <>,
	Christopher Covington <>,
	Doug Anderson <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	"" <>,
	Mark Rutland <>,
	Sudeep Holla <>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Daniel Lezcano <>,
	Nathan Lynch <>,
	"" <>,
	Pawel Moll <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	Heiko Stübner <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clocksource: arch_timer: Allow the device tree to
 specify the physical timer

On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd <> wrote:
>> On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> We surely can handle the UNDEF and do something there. We just can't do
>>>>> it the way Doug described it above.
>>>> I suggested doing that for something else a while ago and Will and Dave
>>>> we're not thrilled[1]. The suggestion back then was to use DT to
>>>> indicate what mode the kernel is running in.
>>>> [1]
>>> I think the context was slightly different. As I re-read the thread, it
>>> seems that the discussion was around whether to use some SMC interface
>>> or not based on whether the kernel is running secure or non-secure. The
>>> argument made by Will was to actually specify the type of the firmware
>>> SMC interface in the DT and use it in the kernel (and probably assume
>>> the kernel is running in secure mode if no smc interface is specified in
>>> the DT; you could have both though, running in secure mode and also
>>> having firmware).
>>> In this arch timer case, we need to work around a firmware bug (or
>>> feature as 32-bit ARM kernels never required CNTVOFF initialisation by
>>> firmware, no matter how small such firmware is). We don't expect a
>>> specific SMC call to initialise CNTVOFF, so we can't describe it in the
>>> DT.
>> Agreed, we can't described SMC calls that don't exist. From my
>> perspective it's just another part of the cpu boot sequence that needs
>> to be handled in the kernel, so describing the requirement via the
>> cpu-boot method seems appropriate. It seems like we're making it harder
>> than it should be by handling the undef when we could have slightly
>> different SMP boot code (and suspend/resume code) depending on the boot
>> method property.
> +heiko
> So, for the case of rk3288, based on this discussion what I'm going to
> propose is to add code to rockchip.c which looks for a particular SMP
> enable method -- say something like "rockchip,rk3288-smp-secure-svc"
> which will then assume we have been booted in secure SVC mode and do
> the CNTVOFF fixup.  I believe, it will need to do this on the boot CPU
> as well, so I think it will need to scan the DT fairly early on the
> boot CPU and also perform the function there.
> I'll look into implementing this and post code.  Comments and
> suggestions appreciated, thanks.

What goes wrong if we read the cntvoff from the boot CPU during
smp_prepare_cpus() phase and use that to set the cntvoff on the other
CPUs? That avoids needing to do anything very early by making the value
the same. It does mean that cntvoff is some random out of reset value
for CPU0, but at least it's consistent.

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists