[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A783F7.7050301@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:34:31 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: "Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 21/21] arm64: Panic when VHE and non VHE CPUs coexist
On 26/01/16 14:25, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> On 25/01/16 15:53, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Having both VHE and non-VHE capable CPUs in the same system
>> is likely to be a recipe for disaster.
>
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>> index b1adc51..bc7650a 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle)
>> pr_crit("CPU%u: failed to come online\n", cpu);
>> ret = -EIO;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (is_kernel_mode_mismatched())
>> + panic("CPU%u: incompatible execution level", cpu);
>
>
> fyi,
>
> I have a series which tries to perform some checks for early CPU features,
> like this at [1] and adds support for early CPU boot failures, passing the error
> status back to the master. May be we could move this check there(once it settles),
> and fail the CPU boot with CPU_PANIC_KERNEL status.
>
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-January/401727.html
Definitely, there is room for consolidation in this area...
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists