linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/29] arm_mpam: Add cpuhp callbacks to probe MSC hardware

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: <20250911160737.0000492f@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 16:07:37 +0100
From: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, D Scott Phillips OS
	<scott@...amperecomputing.com>, <carl@...amperecomputing.com>,
	<lcherian@...vell.com>, <bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com>,
	<tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>, <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Jamie Iles
	<quic_jiles@...cinc.com>, Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
	<peternewman@...gle.com>, <dfustini@...libre.com>, <amitsinght@...vell.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>, Koba
 Ko <kobak@...dia.com>, Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
	<fenghuay@...dia.com>, <baisheng.gao@...soc.com>, Rob Herring
	<robh@...nel.org>, Rohit Mathew <rohit.mathew@....com>, "Rafael Wysocki"
	<rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Lorenzo Pieralisi
	<lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>, Sudeep Holla
	<sudeep.holla@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, "Will
 Deacon" <will@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Lecopzer Chen <lecopzerc@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/29] arm_mpam: Add cpuhp callbacks to probe MSC
 hardware

On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 20:42:50 +0000
James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:

> Because an MSC can only by accessed from the CPUs in its cpu-affinity
> set we need to be running on one of those CPUs to probe the MSC
> hardware.
> 
> Do this work in the cpuhp callback. Probing the hardware will only
> happen before MPAM is enabled, walk all the MSCs and probe those we can
> reach that haven't already been probed as each CPU's online call is made.
> 
> This adds the low-level MSC register accessors.
> 
> Once all MSCs reported by the firmware have been probed from a CPU in
> their respective cpu-affinity set, the probe-time cpuhp callbacks are
> replaced.  The replacement callbacks will ultimately need to handle
> save/restore of the runtime MSC state across power transitions, but for
> now there is nothing to do in them: so do nothing.
> 
> The architecture's context switch code will be enabled by a static-key,
> this can be set by mpam_enable(), but must be done from process context,
> not a cpuhp callback because both take the cpuhp lock.
> Whenever a new MSC has been probed, the mpam_enable() work is scheduled
> to test if all the MSCs have been probed. If probing fails, mpam_disable()
> is scheduled to unregister the cpuhp callbacks and free memory.
> 
> CC: Lecopzer Chen <lecopzerc@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>

Trivial suggestion inline. Either way
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>

> +
> +/* Before mpam is enabled, try to probe new MSC */
> +static int mpam_discovery_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	int err = 0;
> +	struct mpam_msc *msc;
> +	bool new_device_probed = false;
> +
> +	guard(srcu)(&mpam_srcu);
> +	list_for_each_entry_srcu(msc, &mpam_all_msc, all_msc_list,
> +				 srcu_read_lock_held(&mpam_srcu)) {
> +		if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &msc->accessibility))
> +			continue;
> +
> +		mutex_lock(&msc->probe_lock);
> +		if (!msc->probed)
> +			err = mpam_msc_hw_probe(msc);
> +		mutex_unlock(&msc->probe_lock);
> +
> +		if (!err)
> +			new_device_probed = true;
> +		else
> +			break;
Unless this going to get more complex why not

		if (err)
			break;

		new_device_probed = true;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (new_device_probed && !err)
> +		schedule_work(&mpam_enable_work);
> +	if (err) {
> +		mpam_disable_reason = "error during probing";
> +		schedule_work(&mpam_broken_work);
> +	}
> +
> +	return err;
> +}

> +static void mpam_enable_once(void)
> +{
> +	mpam_register_cpuhp_callbacks(mpam_cpu_online, mpam_cpu_offline);
> +
> +	pr_info("MPAM enabled\n");

Feels too noisy given it should be easy enough to tell. pr_dbg() perhaps.


> +}