[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR84MB171846CCF58FC36A39C39EF388C99@PH0PR84MB1718.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 13:41:10 +0000
From: "Hawkins, Nick" <nick.hawkins@....com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Verdun, Jean-Marie" <verdun@....com>
CC: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1] ARM: A9: Add ARM ERRATA 764319 workaround
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 1:53 PM Verdun, Jean-Marie <verdun@....com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > > Hi Nick,
> >
> > > This seems a bit more complex than necessary. Can't you just use a custom
> > inline asm with an ex_table entry to catch the fault? Have a look at
> > __get_user_asm() for an example.
> >
> > Arnd
> >
> > We got inspired from debug_reg_hook within the same source file (
> >./arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c ). We chose that path to keep
> >coherency within the source code. We can implement the same fix by
> >using an ex_table entry, but this will create two different ways at
> >catching unknown instruction within the same source file. Will that be ok ?
> I got a little lost trying to find where the breakpoint instruction comes from that gets trapped here, but I would guess that they had to do this using an undef_hook because the ex_table approach does not work there for some reason.
> I would still pick the ex_table method here if that works.
I will pursue the method you have recommended Arnd.
Thank you for the feedback as always.
-Nick Hawkins
Powered by blists - more mailing lists