[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200922180745.m6bjgjzz6cwercgf@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:07:45 +0100
From: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] kvm: arm64: Duplicate
arm64_ssbd_callback_required for nVHE hyp
> > u64 *ptr;
> >
> > - ptr = per_cpu_ptr(&arm64_ssbd_callback_required, cpu);
> > + ptr = per_cpu_ptr_nvhe(arm64_ssbd_callback_required, cpu);
> > err = create_hyp_mappings(ptr, ptr + 1, PAGE_HYP);
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > +
> > + /* Copy value from kernel to hyp. */
> > + *ptr = per_cpu(arm64_ssbd_callback_required, cpu);
>
> Hmm. Is this correct for late arriving CPUs, where we don't know whether
> a callback is required at the point we do the copy?
>
> That sounds fiddly to resolve, but this _might_ all be moot because I'm
> about to post a series that allows us to remove the hyp mapping of this
> variable entirely. So leave this for now, but maybe stick a comment in
> that it doesn't work for late cpus.
Ah, good point. I'll move the value copy at the end of cpu_init_hyp_mode().
It must be known at that point. And if your series gets rid of this completely,
even better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists