linux-kernel - RE: gic700 shareability question

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <DU0PR04MB941748AA2A21C5FB384A7F4488929@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 09:11:33 +0000
From:   Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>
CC:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: gic700 shareability question

> Subject: Re: gic700 shareability question
> 
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 01:36:31AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > > Subject: Re: gic700 shareability question
> > >
> > > + Lorenzo
> > >
> > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 13:48:19 +0100,
> > > Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Marc,
> > > >
> > > > We have an SoC that use GIC-700, but not support shareability,
> > >
> > > Define this. The IP does support shareability, but your integration
> doesn't?
> > >
> > > > Currently I just hack the code as below. Do you think it is
> > > > feasible to add firmware bindings such that these can be used to
> > > > define the correct shareability/cacheability instead of relying on
> > > > the programmability of the CBASER register?
> > > >
> > > > Saying with "broken-shareability", we just clear all the
> > > > shareability settings.
> > >
> > > This is the same thing as the Rockchip crap, so you are in good company.
> > >
> > > I've repeatedly stated that this needs to be handled:
> > >
> > > - either by describing the full system topology and describe what is
> > >   in the same inner-shareable domain as the CPUs, which needs to
> > >   encompass both DT and ACPI (starting with DT seems reasonable),
> > >
> >
> > We will give a look on this. But honestly not have a good idea on how.
> 
> It is a longer term fix for the issue, we are looking into this.
> 
> > > - or as a SoC specific erratum, but not as a general "sh*t happened"
> > >   property.
> >
> > I will ask the hardware team to create an errata.
> > >
> > > AFAIK, Lorenzo is looking into this.
> >
> > Lorenzo, are you working on this?
> 
> Yes it is being worked on, that does not prevent though an errata
> workaround to be applied, firmware bindings definitions can take a while to
> sort out.

Sure, we need go with errata. Thanks for working on this.

Thanks,
Peng.
> 
> Lorenzo