From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:30:29 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: spin-table: handle unmapped cpu-release-addrs In-Reply-To: References: <1406717944-24725-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <1406717944-24725-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20140730113013.GL12239@arm.com> Message-ID: <20140730123029.GA20162@leverpostej> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:00:40PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 30 July 2014 13:30, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> From: Mark Rutland > >> > >> In certain cases the cpu-release-addr of a CPU may not fall in the > >> linear mapping (e.g. when the kernel is loaded above this address due to > >> the presence of other images in memory). This is problematic for the > >> spin-table code as it assumes that it can trivially convert a > >> cpu-release-addr to a valid VA in the linear map. > >> > >> This patch modifies the spin-table code to use a temporary cached > >> mapping to write to a given cpu-release-addr, enabling us to support > >> addresses regardless of whether they are covered by the linear mapping. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland > >> Tested-by: Mark Salter > >> [ardb: added (__force void *) cast] > >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > I'm nervous about this. What if the spin table sits in the same physical 64k > > frame as a read-sensitive device and we're running with 64k pages? > > > > I see what you mean. This is potentially hairy, as EFI already > ioremap_cache()s everything known to it as normal DRAM, so using plain > ioremap() here if pfn_valid() returns false for cpu-release-addr's PFN > may still result in mappings with different attributes for the same > region. So how should we decide whether to call ioremap() or > ioremap_cache() in this case? If we're careful about handling mismatched attributes we might be able to get away with always using a device mapping. I'll need to have a think about that, I'm not sure on the architected cache behaviour in such a case. Thanks, Mark.