[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0e1d555404e4ae8edcf6737735dc0eb7@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2020 10:06:19 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Allow PSCI SYSTEM_OFF/RESET to return
On 2020-12-29 17:04, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 04:00:59PM +0000, David Brazdil wrote:
>> The KVM/arm64 PSCI relay assumes that SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET
>> should
>> not return, as dictated by the PSCI spec. However, there is firmware
>> out
>> there which breaks this assumption, leading to a hyp panic. Make KVM
>> more robust to broken firmware by allowing these to return.
>
> Are you sure you should just return?
>
> We've had issues in the past with Linux reboot(2) that returns
> to userspace, allowing on 32-bit ARM for example watchdogs to
> unexpectedly continue being serviced.
I don't think this changes anything compared to the case where
the PSCI relay isn't enabled. The EL1 part of the kernel would
see the SYSTEM_RESET call return, and handle it accordingly
(stay in a while(1) loop).
This is consistent with the PSCI relay design goal of being
invisible to the EL1 kernel.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists