[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160215172653.GM6298@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:26:53 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 23/23] arm64: Panic when VHE and non VHE CPUs coexist
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 06:40:04PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Having both VHE and non-VHE capable CPUs in the same system
> is likely to be a recipe for disaster.
>
> If the boot CPU has VHE, but a secondary is not, we won't be
> able to downgrade and run the kernel at EL1. Add CPU hotplug
> to the mix, and this produces a terrifying mess.
>
> Let's solve the problem once and for all. If you mix VHE and
> non-VHE CPUs in the same system, you deserve to loose, and this
> patch makes sure you don't get a chance.
>
> This is implemented by storing the kernel execution level in
> a global variable. Secondaries will park themselves in a
> WFI loop if they observe a mismatch. Also, the primary CPU
> will detect that the secondary CPU has died on a mismatched
> execution level. Panic will follow.
This should really be based on Suzuki's series for handling generic
mismatches:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-January/401727.html
To avoid growing a dependency on something that's unlikely to make it
for 4.6, I'd be inclined to drop your homegrown checks altogether amd
help Suzuki with his series as a separate activity (i.e. it needn't be
a blocker imo).
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists