[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoIlQaWNy1wu39ak@osiris>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 12:19:45 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jonas Paulsson <paulsson@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand@...ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Alexander Egorenkov <egorenar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andreas Krebbel <krebbel@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] s390/entry: workaround llvm's IAS limitations
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:07:43AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
> > index a6b45eaa3450..f2f30bfba1e9 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
> > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/entry.S
> > @@ -172,9 +172,19 @@ _LPP_OFFSET = __LC_LPP
> > lgr %r14,\reg
> > larl %r13,\start
> > slgr %r14,%r13
> > - lghi %r13,\end - \start
> > - clgr %r14,%r13
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_AS_IS_LLVM
> > + clgfrl %r14,.Lrange_size\@
> > +#else
> > + clgfi %r14,\end - \start
> > +#endif
> > jhe \outside_label
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG
> > + .section .rodata, "a"
> > + .align 4
> > +.Lrange_size\@:
> > + .long \end - \start
>
> Isn't the machine check handler refers to this memory before checking
> unrecoverable storage errors (with CHKSTG macro) as result of this change?
Yes, indeed. However implementing this without another register will
be quite of a challenge. So what I would prefer in any case: just
assume that this minimal set of memory accesses work. Actually I'd
seriously like to go a bit further, and even move the checks for
storage errors back to C for two reasons:
- this would make the machine check handler entry code easier again
- it would also allow to enter the machine check handler with DAT on
After all we rely anyway on the fact that at least the local lowcore +
the page(s) which contain text are still accessible. Assuming that a
couple of page tables also work won't make this much worse, but the
code much easier.
So I'd suggest: leave this code as is, and at some later point move
"rework" the early machine check handler code.
What do you think?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists