All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Unify WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_{NVHE,VHE}
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:26:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200430092658.GF15669@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f391a75142a8ae2263e52d37d73526d@kernel.org>

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:16:03AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-04-29 22:21, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:13:46PM +0100, Andrew Scull wrote:
> > > Errata 1165522, 1319367 and 1530923 each allow TLB entries to be
> > > allocated as a result of a speculative AT instruction. In order to
> > > avoid mandating VHE on certain affected CPUs, apply the workaround to
> > > both the nVHE and the VHE case for all affected CPUs.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>
> > > CC: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > > CC: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > > CC: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> > > CC: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > CC: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > * From v1 <20200327143941.195626-1-ascull@google.com>:
> > >   - Restored registers in VHE path
> > 
> > This largely looks good to me, but I don't understand these bits:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > index 8a1e81a400e0..651820f537fb 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static void __hyp_text
> > > __activate_traps_nvhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > 
> > >  	write_sysreg(val, cptr_el2);
> > > 
> > > -	if (cpus_have_final_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_NVHE)) {
> > > +	if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT)) {
> > 
> > It seems like you consistently replace cpus_have_final_cap() with
> > cpus_have_const_cap(), but I can't figure out why that's required.
> 
> Seems like a bad conflict resolution. We definitely want to keep the
> final_cap checks for anything that will run at EL2, and probably
> everywhere else (if capabilities are not final by the time we hit KVM,
> we have bigger problems to solve).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         M.
> -- 
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

Indeed, those weren't the 5 characters my eye was interested in. Looks
like we'll be having a v3..
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Unify WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_{NVHE,VHE}
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:26:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200430092658.GF15669@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f391a75142a8ae2263e52d37d73526d@kernel.org>

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:16:03AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-04-29 22:21, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:13:46PM +0100, Andrew Scull wrote:
> > > Errata 1165522, 1319367 and 1530923 each allow TLB entries to be
> > > allocated as a result of a speculative AT instruction. In order to
> > > avoid mandating VHE on certain affected CPUs, apply the workaround to
> > > both the nVHE and the VHE case for all affected CPUs.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>
> > > CC: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > > CC: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
> > > CC: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> > > CC: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > > CC: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > > * From v1 <20200327143941.195626-1-ascull@google.com>:
> > >   - Restored registers in VHE path
> > 
> > This largely looks good to me, but I don't understand these bits:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > index 8a1e81a400e0..651820f537fb 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> > > @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static void __hyp_text
> > > __activate_traps_nvhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > 
> > >  	write_sysreg(val, cptr_el2);
> > > 
> > > -	if (cpus_have_final_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_NVHE)) {
> > > +	if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT)) {
> > 
> > It seems like you consistently replace cpus_have_final_cap() with
> > cpus_have_const_cap(), but I can't figure out why that's required.
> 
> Seems like a bad conflict resolution. We definitely want to keep the
> final_cap checks for anything that will run at EL2, and probably
> everywhere else (if capabilities are not final by the time we hit KVM,
> we have bigger problems to solve).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         M.
> -- 
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

Indeed, those weren't the 5 characters my eye was interested in. Looks
like we'll be having a v3..

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-30  9:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-22 16:13 [PATCH v2] arm64: Unify WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT_{NVHE,VHE} Andrew Scull
2020-04-22 16:13 ` Andrew Scull
2020-04-22 17:36 ` Andrew Scull
2020-04-22 17:36   ` Andrew Scull
2020-04-29 21:21 ` Will Deacon
2020-04-29 21:21   ` Will Deacon
2020-04-30  9:16   ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-30  9:16     ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-30  9:26     ` Andrew Scull [this message]
2020-04-30  9:26       ` Andrew Scull

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=20200430092658.GF15669@google.com \
    --to=ascull@google.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=steven.price@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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.