[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170511153719.GB19626@leverpostej>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 16:37:20 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>, marc.zyngier@....com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bigeasy@...utronix.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> >+{
> >+ if (static_branch_likely(&arm64_const_caps_ready))
> >+ return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> >+ else
> >+ return cpus_have_cap(num);
>
> We use cpus_have_const_cap() from hyp code, via has_vhe() and we could potentially
> try to access unmapped kernel data from hyp if we fallback to cpus_have_cap().
> However, it looks like we have already set arm64_const_caps_ready, so should not
> hit it in practise. May be we could add a stricter version of the helper ?
>
> static inline cpus_have_const_cap_strict(int num)
> {
> BUG_ON(!static_branch_likely(&arm64_const_caps_ready);
> return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> }
Just to check, is that the only user of cpus_have_const_cap() at hyp?
If so, I can do something like the above, patching <asm/virt.h> to use
it for has_vhe().
We don't have a BUG handler at hyp, but that should trigger a hyp panic,
which I guess is good enough.
Marc, thoughts?
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists