[PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:59:48PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:49:34PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Maybe
> > > > just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> > > > runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> > > > the erratum (which should never fire)?
> > > 
> > > You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
> > > and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
> > > a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
> > > use the hw one.
> > 
> > True, in the case that all PAN options are disabled we still want this
> > to work. How about:
> > 
> >   select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN
> 
> As I replied to myself, the above would work for me as well, so let's go
> for this.
> 
> > In fact, what's the reason for supporting SW_PAN and ARM64_PAN as a
> > config combination? Why not just have "PAN" that enables them both and
> > uses the hardware feature if it's there?
> 
> Because SW PAN has a non-trivial performance hit. You would enable SW
> PAN only if you are paranoid about security. HW PAN, OTOH, is very cheap
> and I wouldn't want to miss enabling it in a single Image supporting
> ARMv8.0 and ARMv8.1 just because SW PAN is slow on ARMv8.0.
> 
> IOW, ARM64_PAN is default y while ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is default n.

Ok, in that case, then how about another permutation: we make
ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN depend on ARM64_PAN? Then when you select "PAN Support"
you get a new menu option underneath it for the emulation? I think that
solves the erratum case and the use-case above.

Will