[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5c76075d-1889-ff75-0567-f3e2df7079f4@foss.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 01:02:35 -0600
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, marc.zyngier@....com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, Dave.Martin@....com,
shankerd@...eaurora.org, julien.thierry@....com,
mlangsdo@...hat.com, stefan.wahren@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/10] arm64: Always enable ssb vulnerability detection
Hi,
On 2/26/19 7:05 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> The ssb detection logic is necessary regardless of whether
> the vulnerability mitigation code is built into the kernel.
> Break it out so that the CONFIG option only controls the
> mitigation logic and not the vulnerability detection.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 4 ----
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 11 +++++++----
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index dfcfba725d72..c2b60a021437 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -628,11 +628,7 @@ static inline int arm64_get_ssbd_state(void)
> #endif
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD
> void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state);
> -#else
> -static inline void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state) {}
> -#endif
>
> extern int do_emulate_mrs(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 sys_reg, u32 rt);
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> index 0f6e8f5d67bc..5f5611d17dc1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c
> @@ -276,7 +276,6 @@ static int detect_harden_bp_fw(void)
> return 1;
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD
> DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(u64, arm64_ssbd_callback_required);
>
> int ssbd_state __read_mostly = ARM64_SSBD_KERNEL;
> @@ -347,6 +346,7 @@ void __init arm64_enable_wa2_handling(struct alt_instr *alt,
> *updptr = cpu_to_le32(aarch64_insn_gen_nop());
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD
> void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state)
> {
> if (this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_SSBS)) {
> @@ -371,6 +371,12 @@ void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state)
> break;
> }
> }
> +#else
> +void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state)
> +{
> + pr_info_once("SSBD, disabled by kernel configuration\n");
Is there a stray comma or is the continuation of some previous printout?
Regardless of that it looks good and compiles with both
CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD defined or not:
Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cheers,
Andre.
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD */
>
> static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
> int scope)
> @@ -468,7 +474,6 @@ static bool has_ssbd_mitigation(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry,
>
> return required;
> }
> -#endif /* CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD */
>
> static void __maybe_unused
> cpu_enable_cache_maint_trap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused)
> @@ -760,14 +765,12 @@ const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_errata[] = {
> ERRATA_MIDR_RANGE_LIST(arm64_harden_el2_vectors),
> },
> #endif
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD
> {
> .desc = "Speculative Store Bypass Disable",
> .capability = ARM64_SSBD,
> .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_LOCAL_CPU_ERRATUM,
> .matches = has_ssbd_mitigation,
> },
> -#endif
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_1188873
> {
> /* Cortex-A76 r0p0 to r2p0 */
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists