[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86frmrslx0.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 14:22:03 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>
Cc: richard.xnu.clark@...il.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
will@...nel.org,
linux@...linux.org.uk,
mark.rutland@....com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Question about interrupt prioriyt of ARM GICv3/4
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 13:02:45 +0000,
Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl> wrote:
>
> Based on my experience with OpenBSD, I'm not even sure there is much
> benefit even if you have preemtion.
>
> And regarding anything wrong happening: there is an interesting bug in
> the RK3399 GIC integration where it gets the priorities wrong:
>
> https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/feb3ea439d8f49b3c0e33f54c34631a611b98e21/sys/arch/arm64/dev/agintc.c#L395
>
> (that comment is my interpretation of what's happening; I might be
> misinterpreting what's really going on)
>
> As far as I can tell the Linux code doesn't handle that quirk.
> Probably it doesn't matter because Linux only uses the priority
> mechanisms to implement pseudo-NMI functionality and/or doesn't do
> preemption of interrupts.
Ah, beautiful! We actually do preemption with pseudo-NMI, and as it
turns out, I just had a report of 6.11 being broken on that SoC when
pNMIs are enabled.
My "solution" for this is to just disable security at the distributor
level, and let things rip, see [1].
Thanks for the heads up!
M.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241213141037.3995049-1-maz@kernel.org
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists