linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 05/19] arm64: Add support for trace synchronization barrier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1b5e5bb2-b89f-fa35-0a8b-8c5476cb9ff6@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:51:14 +0000
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        coresight@...ts.linaro.org, mike.leach@...aro.org,
        leo.yan@...aro.org, anshuman.khandual@....com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/19] arm64: Add support for trace synchronization
 barrier

On 24/03/2021 13:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:39:13 +0000,
> Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 23/03/2021 18:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> Hi Suzuki?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:06:33PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> tsb csync synchronizes the trace operation of instructions.
>>>> The instruction is a nop when FEAT_TRF is not implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
>>>> Cc: Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
>>>
>>> How do you plan to merge these patches? If they go via the coresight
>>> tree:
>>>
>>
>> Ideally all of this should go via the CoreSight tree to have the
>> dependencies solved at one place. But there are some issues :
>>
>> If this makes to 5.13 queue for CoreSight,
>>
>> 1) CoreSight next is based on rc2 at the moment and we have fixes gone
>> into rc3 and later, which this series will depend on. (We could move
>> the next tree forward to a later rc to solve this).
>>
>> 2) There could be conflicts with the kvmarm tree for the KVM host
>> changes (That has dependency on the TRBE definitions patch).
>>
>> If it doesn't make to 5.13 queue, it would be good to have this patch,
>> the TRBE defintions and the KVM host patches queued for 5.13 (not sure
>> if this is acceptable) and we could rebase the CoreSight changes on 5.13
>> and push it to next release.
>>
>> I am open for other suggestions.
>>
>> Marc, Mathieu,
>>
>> Thoughts ?
> 
> I was planning to take the first two patches in 5.12 as fixes (they
> are queued already, and would hopefully land in -rc5). If that doesn't
> fit with the plan, please let me know ASAP.

Marc,

I think it would be better to hold on pushing those patches until we 
have a clarity on how things will go.

Sorry for the confusion.

Kind regards
Suzuki

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
>