[PATCH v3] arm64: enforce x1|x2|x3 == 0 upon kernel entry as per boot protocol

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:45:17AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 20 March 2015 at 12:41, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >> >> +     if (boot_args[1] || boot_args[2] || boot_args[3]) {
> >> >> +             pr_err("WARNING: boot protocol violation detected (x1 == %llx, x2 == %llx, x3 == %llx)\n",
> >> >> +                     boot_args[1], boot_args[2], boot_args[3]);
> >> >> +             pr_err("WARNING: your bootloader may fail to load newer kernels\n");
> >> >
> >> > If we ever decide to use x1-x3 for something, and try to boot an older
> >> > kernel, that warning is going to be a bit misleading. That could matter
> >> > for VMs where we're going to see old kernel images for a long time.
> >> >
> >> > I would like the warning to mention that could be the case.
> >> >
> >> > It would also be nice if the message were consistently spaced regardless
> >> > of the values of x1-x3, so we should zero-pad them (and as that takes a
> >> > resonable amount of space, let's give them a line each).
> >> >
> >> > So could we change the warning to be something like:
> >> >
> >> >         pr_err("WARNING: x1-x3 nonzero in violation of boot protocol:\n"
> >> >                "\tx1: %016llx\n\tx2: %016llx\n\tx3: %016llx\n"
> >> >                "This indicates a broken bootloader or old kernel\n",
> >> >                boot_args[1], boot_args[2], boot_args[3]);
> >> >
> >>
> >> OK, I have applied this change.
> >>
> >> But I would like to note that we should probably only extend the boot
> >> protocol in a way that would not trigger this on older kernels in the
> >> first place.
> >> I.e., assign a bit in the flags field in the header, which indicates
> >> whether some boot protocol enhancement is supported by the kernel
> >> being loaded, and only allow x1/x2/x3 to be non-zero if said
> >> enhancement defines that.
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > Given that, if you want to restore your original last line, that would
> > be fine with me (and my Ack still applies).
> >
> 
> I think it's fine to leave it as is

Yup, and this is sitting pretty on the arm64 devel branch.

Ard: I also pushed a kvm-bounce-page branch for you. Next step would be to
merge everything into for-next/core and put your VA changes on top of that.

I'd appreciate a sanity check of the current branch first, though!

Cheers,

Will