[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251008124040.GC77665@e132581.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 13:40:40 +0100
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Mukesh Ojha <mukesh.ojha@....qualcomm.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, joey.gouly@....com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, alexandru.elisei@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Check cpu_has_spe() before initializing
PMSCR_EL1 in VHE
On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 11:46:55AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
> > > Lets guard the change with cpu_has_spe() check so that it only affects
> > > the cpu which has SPE feature supported.
> >
> > This could benefit from being spelled out a bit more. In both cases we
> > check for the presence of FEAT_SPE, however I believe the issue you
> > observe is EL3 hasn't delegated ownership of the Profiling Buffer to
> > Non-secure nor does it reinject an UNDEF in response to the sysreg trap.
> >
> > I agree that the change is correct but the rationale needs to be clear.
>
> To me, this smells a lot more like some sort of papering over a
> firmware bug. Why isn't SPE available the first place?
TF-a grants permission to non-secure world [1], only access from secure
world or realm will trap to EL3.
So yes, it would be good to check if any issue in firmware.
Thanks,
Leo
[1] https://git.trustedfirmware.org/plugins/gitiles/TF-A/trusted-firmware-a.git/+/refs/heads/master/lib/extensions/spe/spe.c#52
Powered by blists - more mailing lists