From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: KVM: Allow unaligned accesses at EL2
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:56:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170607095646.GD24481@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73f039f7-7597-fd34-367c-1cc6fdda3673@arm.com>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:16:29AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 06/06/17 21:09, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 07:08:34PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> We currently have the SCTLR_EL2.A bit set, trapping unaligned accesses
> >> at EL2, but we're not really prepared to deal with it. So far, this
> >> has been unnoticed, until GCC 7 started emitting those (in particular
> >> 64bit writes on a 32bit boundary).
> >>
> >> Since the rest of the kernel is pretty happy about that, let's follow
> >> its example and set SCTLR_EL2.A to zero. Modern CPUs don't really
> >> care.
> >
> > Why do we set the A flag via SCTLR_ELx_FLAGS in the first place, only to
> > drop that flag later on for both EL1 and EL2 ?
>
> That flag is always cleared at EL1, never set. Actually, only EL2 uses
> that macro to *set* flags. An alternative would be to do away with the
> macro and use the individual flags, like the 32bit side does.
>
> What do you think?
>
I don't understand why the A bit is part of SCTLR_ELx_FLAGS then? Is it
used as a mask, is that why?
In terms of these patches, I think we should apply these, because they
solve the problem and do the same thing.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: cdall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: KVM: Allow unaligned accesses at EL2
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:56:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170607095646.GD24481@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73f039f7-7597-fd34-367c-1cc6fdda3673@arm.com>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:16:29AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 06/06/17 21:09, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 07:08:34PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> We currently have the SCTLR_EL2.A bit set, trapping unaligned accesses
> >> at EL2, but we're not really prepared to deal with it. So far, this
> >> has been unnoticed, until GCC 7 started emitting those (in particular
> >> 64bit writes on a 32bit boundary).
> >>
> >> Since the rest of the kernel is pretty happy about that, let's follow
> >> its example and set SCTLR_EL2.A to zero. Modern CPUs don't really
> >> care.
> >
> > Why do we set the A flag via SCTLR_ELx_FLAGS in the first place, only to
> > drop that flag later on for both EL1 and EL2 ?
>
> That flag is always cleared at EL1, never set. Actually, only EL2 uses
> that macro to *set* flags. An alternative would be to do away with the
> macro and use the individual flags, like the 32bit side does.
>
> What do you think?
>
I don't understand why the A bit is part of SCTLR_ELx_FLAGS then? Is it
used as a mask, is that why?
In terms of these patches, I think we should apply these, because they
solve the problem and do the same thing.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-07 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-06 18:08 [PATCH 0/3] arm/arm64: KVM: SCTLR_EL2/HSCTLR setup fixes Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 18:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 18:08 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm64: KVM: Preserve RES1 bits in SCTLR_EL2 Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 18:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 18:08 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64: KVM: Allow unaligned accesses at EL2 Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 18:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 20:09 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-06-06 20:09 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-06-07 9:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-07 9:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-07 9:56 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2017-06-07 9:56 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-06-07 10:11 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-07 10:11 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 18:08 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm: KVM: Allow unaligned accesses at HYP Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 18:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2017-06-06 20:09 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-06-06 20:09 ` Christoffer Dall
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170607095646.GD24481@cbox \
--to=cdall@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.