linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add workaround for Cavium erratum 27456

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:	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 11:59:10 -0800
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
CC:	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Add workaround for Cavium erratum 27456

On 02/09/2016 11:52 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue,  9 Feb 2016 11:29:16 -0800
> David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>> From: Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>
>>
>> On ThunderX T88 pass 1.x through 2.1 parts, broadcast TLBI
>> instructions may cause the icache to become invalid if it contains
>> data for a non-current ASID.
>>
>> This patch implements the workaround (which flushes the local icache
>> when switching the mm) by using code patching.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>
>> Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/Kconfig                  | 11 +++++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h |  3 ++-
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c      |  9 +++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/mm/proc.S                | 12 ++++++++++++
>>   4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> It would be good to update Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt to
> reflect the fact that there is a workaround available for this erratum.

Would you prefer a separate patch for that, or should I roll it into 
this one and resubmit?

David Daney


>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.
>