From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 02/10] arm64: cpufeatures: Correctly handle signed values
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:13:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240122181344.258974-3-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240122181344.258974-1-maz@kernel.org>
Although we've had signed values for some features such as PMUv3
and FP, the code that handles the comparaison with some limit
has a couple of annoying issues:
- the min_field_value is always unsigned, meaning that we cannot
easily compare it with a negative value
- it is not possible to have a range of values, let alone a range
of negative values
Fix this by:
- adding an upper limit to the comparison, defaulting to all bits
being set to the maximum positive value
- ensuring that the signess of the min and max values are taken into
account
A ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS_NEG() macro is provided for signed features, but
nothing is using it yet.
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
index 21c824edf8ce..a98d95f3492b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
@@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
u8 field_pos;
u8 field_width;
u8 min_field_value;
+ u8 max_field_value;
u8 hwcap_type;
bool sign;
unsigned long hwcap;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 8d1a634a403e..92b1546f2622 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -140,12 +140,42 @@ void dump_cpu_features(void)
pr_emerg("0x%*pb\n", ARM64_NCAPS, &system_cpucaps);
}
+#define __ARM64_MAX_POSITIVE(reg, field) \
+ ((reg##_##field##_SIGNED ? \
+ BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH - 1) : \
+ BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH)) - 1)
+
+#define __ARM64_MIN_NEGATIVE(reg, field) BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH - 1)
+
+#define __ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, min_value, max_value) \
+ .sys_reg = SYS_##reg, \
+ .field_pos = reg##_##field##_SHIFT, \
+ .field_width = reg##_##field##_WIDTH, \
+ .sign = reg##_##field##_SIGNED, \
+ .min_field_value = min_value, \
+ .max_field_value = max_value,
+
+/*
+ * ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS() encodes a field with a range from min_value to
+ * an implicit maximum that depends on the sign-ess of the field.
+ *
+ * An unsigned field will be capped at all ones, while a signed field
+ * will be limited to the positive half only.
+ */
#define ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, min_value) \
- .sys_reg = SYS_##reg, \
- .field_pos = reg##_##field##_SHIFT, \
- .field_width = reg##_##field##_WIDTH, \
- .sign = reg##_##field##_SIGNED, \
- .min_field_value = reg##_##field##_##min_value,
+ __ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, \
+ SYS_FIELD_VALUE(reg, field, min_value), \
+ __ARM64_MAX_POSITIVE(reg, field))
+
+/*
+ * ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS_NEG() encodes a field with a range from an
+ * implicit minimal value to max_value. This should be used when
+ * matching a non-implemented property.
+ */
+#define ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS_NEG(reg, field, max_value) \
+ __ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, \
+ __ARM64_MIN_NEGATIVE(reg, field), \
+ SYS_FIELD_VALUE(reg, field, max_value))
#define __ARM64_FTR_BITS(SIGNED, VISIBLE, STRICT, TYPE, SHIFT, WIDTH, SAFE_VAL) \
{ \
@@ -1451,11 +1481,28 @@ has_always(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
static bool
feature_matches(u64 reg, const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
{
- int val = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(reg, entry->field_pos,
- entry->field_width,
- entry->sign);
+ int val, min, max;
+ u64 tmp;
+
+ val = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(reg, entry->field_pos,
+ entry->field_width,
+ entry->sign);
+
+ tmp = entry->min_field_value;
+ tmp <<= entry->field_pos;
+
+ min = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(tmp, entry->field_pos,
+ entry->field_width,
+ entry->sign);
+
+ tmp = entry->max_field_value;
+ tmp <<= entry->field_pos;
+
+ max = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(tmp, entry->field_pos,
+ entry->field_width,
+ entry->sign);
- return val >= entry->min_field_value;
+ return val >= min && val <= max;
}
static u64
--
2.39.2
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 02/10] arm64: cpufeatures: Correctly handle signed values
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 18:13:36 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240122181344.258974-3-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240122181344.258974-1-maz@kernel.org>
Although we've had signed values for some features such as PMUv3
and FP, the code that handles the comparaison with some limit
has a couple of annoying issues:
- the min_field_value is always unsigned, meaning that we cannot
easily compare it with a negative value
- it is not possible to have a range of values, let alone a range
of negative values
Fix this by:
- adding an upper limit to the comparison, defaulting to all bits
being set to the maximum positive value
- ensuring that the signess of the min and max values are taken into
account
A ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS_NEG() macro is provided for signed features, but
nothing is using it yet.
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
index 21c824edf8ce..a98d95f3492b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
@@ -363,6 +363,7 @@ struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
u8 field_pos;
u8 field_width;
u8 min_field_value;
+ u8 max_field_value;
u8 hwcap_type;
bool sign;
unsigned long hwcap;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 8d1a634a403e..92b1546f2622 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -140,12 +140,42 @@ void dump_cpu_features(void)
pr_emerg("0x%*pb\n", ARM64_NCAPS, &system_cpucaps);
}
+#define __ARM64_MAX_POSITIVE(reg, field) \
+ ((reg##_##field##_SIGNED ? \
+ BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH - 1) : \
+ BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH)) - 1)
+
+#define __ARM64_MIN_NEGATIVE(reg, field) BIT(reg##_##field##_WIDTH - 1)
+
+#define __ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, min_value, max_value) \
+ .sys_reg = SYS_##reg, \
+ .field_pos = reg##_##field##_SHIFT, \
+ .field_width = reg##_##field##_WIDTH, \
+ .sign = reg##_##field##_SIGNED, \
+ .min_field_value = min_value, \
+ .max_field_value = max_value,
+
+/*
+ * ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS() encodes a field with a range from min_value to
+ * an implicit maximum that depends on the sign-ess of the field.
+ *
+ * An unsigned field will be capped at all ones, while a signed field
+ * will be limited to the positive half only.
+ */
#define ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, min_value) \
- .sys_reg = SYS_##reg, \
- .field_pos = reg##_##field##_SHIFT, \
- .field_width = reg##_##field##_WIDTH, \
- .sign = reg##_##field##_SIGNED, \
- .min_field_value = reg##_##field##_##min_value,
+ __ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, \
+ SYS_FIELD_VALUE(reg, field, min_value), \
+ __ARM64_MAX_POSITIVE(reg, field))
+
+/*
+ * ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS_NEG() encodes a field with a range from an
+ * implicit minimal value to max_value. This should be used when
+ * matching a non-implemented property.
+ */
+#define ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS_NEG(reg, field, max_value) \
+ __ARM64_CPUID_FIELDS(reg, field, \
+ __ARM64_MIN_NEGATIVE(reg, field), \
+ SYS_FIELD_VALUE(reg, field, max_value))
#define __ARM64_FTR_BITS(SIGNED, VISIBLE, STRICT, TYPE, SHIFT, WIDTH, SAFE_VAL) \
{ \
@@ -1451,11 +1481,28 @@ has_always(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
static bool
feature_matches(u64 reg, const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
{
- int val = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(reg, entry->field_pos,
- entry->field_width,
- entry->sign);
+ int val, min, max;
+ u64 tmp;
+
+ val = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(reg, entry->field_pos,
+ entry->field_width,
+ entry->sign);
+
+ tmp = entry->min_field_value;
+ tmp <<= entry->field_pos;
+
+ min = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(tmp, entry->field_pos,
+ entry->field_width,
+ entry->sign);
+
+ tmp = entry->max_field_value;
+ tmp <<= entry->field_pos;
+
+ max = cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(tmp, entry->field_pos,
+ entry->field_width,
+ entry->sign);
- return val >= entry->min_field_value;
+ return val >= min && val <= max;
}
static u64
--
2.39.2
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-22 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-22 18:13 [PATCH v4 00/10] arm64: Add support for FEAT_E2H0, or lack thereof Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 01/10] arm64: Add macro to compose a sysreg field value Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 11:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 11:40 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 02/10] arm64: cpufeatures: Correctly handle signed values Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 12:13 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:13 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 03/10] arm64: cpufeature: Correctly display signed override values Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 12:14 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:14 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 04/10] arm64: sysreg: Add layout for ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1 Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 12:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 13:06 ` Miguel Luis
2024-02-08 13:06 ` Miguel Luis
2024-02-08 13:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 13:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 05/10] arm64: cpufeature: Add ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1 handling Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 12:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:25 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 06/10] arm64: cpufeature: Detect HCR_EL2.NV1 being RES0 Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 12:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:26 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:27 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:27 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-12 12:48 ` Marek Szyprowski
2024-02-12 12:48 ` Marek Szyprowski
2024-02-12 14:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-12 14:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-12 14:21 ` Marek Szyprowski
2024-02-12 14:21 ` Marek Szyprowski
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 07/10] arm64: Treat HCR_EL2.E2H as RES1 when ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1.E2H0 is negative Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 12:27 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:27 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 08/10] KVM: arm64: Expose ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1 to guests Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 09/10] KVM: arm64: Force guest's HCR_EL2.E2H RES1 when NV1 is not implemented Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` [PATCH v4 10/10] KVM: arm64: Handle Apple M2 as not having HCR_EL2.NV1 implemented Marc Zyngier
2024-01-22 18:13 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-02-08 12:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:29 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-02 19:03 ` [PATCH v4 00/10] arm64: Add support for FEAT_E2H0, or lack thereof Oliver Upton
2024-02-02 19:03 ` Oliver Upton
2024-02-08 12:30 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 12:30 ` Catalin Marinas
2024-02-08 15:24 ` Oliver Upton
2024-02-08 15:24 ` Oliver Upton
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=20240122181344.258974-3-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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.