public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 8/8] arm64: enforce x1|x2|x3 == 0 upon kernel entry as per boot protocol
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:57:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150318185737.GJ19814@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_f=e4UG1GmtFh7j8fvq67v94VA=FwgaxHV5rECx0Wf=Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:46:11PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 18 March 2015 at 19:16, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 18 March 2015 at 19:13, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:55:27PM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> According to the arm64 boot protocol, registers x1 to x3 should be
> >>> zero upon kernel entry, and non-zero values are reserved for future
> >>> use. This future use is going to be problematic if we never enforce
> >>> the current rules, so start enforcing them now, by emitting a warning
> >>> if non-zero values are detected.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S  |  4 ++++
> >>>  arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> >>>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
> >>> index a0fbd99efb89..8636c3cef006 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S
> >>> @@ -233,6 +233,10 @@ section_table:
> >>>  #endif
> >>>
> >>>  ENTRY(stext)
> >>> +     adr_l   x8, boot_regs                   // record the contents of
> >>> +     stp     x0, x1, [x8]                    // x0 .. x3 at kernel entry
> >>> +     stp     x2, x3, [x8, #16]
> >>
> >> I think we should have a dc ivac here as we do for
> >> set_cpu_boot_mode_flag.
> >>
> >> That avoids a potential issue with boot_regs sharing a cacheline with
> >> data we write with the MMU on -- using __flush_dcache_area will result
> >> in a civac, so we could write back dirty data atop of the boot_regs if
> >> there were clean entries in the cache when we did the non-cacheable
> >> write.
> >>
> >
> > Hmm, I wondered about that.
> >
> > Could we instead just make it u64 __initconst boot_regs[] in setup.c ?
> >
> 
> Never mind, it's easier just to do the invalidate right after, and I
> can drop the flush before the access.

Yup.

Annoyingly the minimum cache line size seems to be a word (given the
defnition of CTR.DminLine), which means you need a few dc ivac
instructions to be architecturally correct.

Mark.

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-18 18:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-18 14:55 [PATCH v5 0/8] arm64: head.S cleanup Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] arm64: Get rid of struct cpu_table Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 16:11   ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-23 17:11   ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-23 17:38     ` Will Deacon
2015-03-23 17:41       ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] arm64: add macros for common adrp usages Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 17:54   ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 17:56     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:05       ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 18:06         ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] arm64: remove processor_id Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] arm64: remove __switch_data object from head.S Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] arm64: use PC-relative reference for secondary_holding_pen_release Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] arm64: merge __enable_mmu and __turn_mmu_on Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] arm64: remove __calc_phys_offset Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] arm64: enforce x1|x2|x3 == 0 upon kernel entry as per boot protocol Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:13   ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 18:16     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:46       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:57         ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2015-03-18 19:55           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 20:24             ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-19  7:30               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-19 10:35                 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-19 10:38                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-19 10:41                     ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-19 11:00                       ` [PATCH v3] " Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-19 13:36                         ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-20 11:31                           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-20 11:41                             ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-20 11:45                               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-20 12:25                                 ` Will Deacon
2015-03-20 12:50                                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 22:26           ` [PATCH v5 8/8] " Peter Maydell
2015-03-18 18:23 ` [PATCH v5 0/8] arm64: head.S cleanup Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 18:28   ` Ard Biesheuvel

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=20150318185737.GJ19814@leverpostej \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox