From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K Poulose) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:38:44 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 13/16] arm64: Add support for checking errata based on a list of MIDRS In-Reply-To: <20180130151644.GG5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20180123122809.16269-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20180123122809.16269-14-suzuki.poulose@arm.com> <20180126141610.GU5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> <0558db28-b1f1-b249-6098-99e1071f613f@arm.com> <20180130151644.GG5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <951cb77f-c5f3-56f1-abc7-3cc51248e15d@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 30/01/18 15:16, Dave Martin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 03:57:44PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >> On 26/01/18 14:16, Dave Martin wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:28:06PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>>> Add helpers for detecting an errata on list of midr ranges >>>> of affected CPUs. >>> >>> This doesn't describe what the patch does: instead, helpers are being >>> added for checking whether an MIDR falls in one of multiple affected >>> model(s) and or revision(s). >>> >>> Doing this makes sense, but is it really worth it? >> >> Well, we need th MIDR list helpers anyway for other things: >> - White list of CPUs where we know KPTI is not needed >> - Black list of CPUs where DBM shouldn't be enabled. >> >> So all we do is add a new type which could reduce the number of entries. >> >>> >>> We might save 100-200 bytes in the kernel image for now, but a common >>> workaround for errata on multiple unrelated cpus is surely a rare case. >>> >>> Only if there are many such lists, or if the lists become large does >>> this start to seem a clear win. >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 + >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >>>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h >>>> index a3d54c2c411f..70712de687c7 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> @@ -330,22 +353,7 @@ const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_errata[] = { >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR >>>> { >>>> .capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR, >>>> - ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A57), >>>> - .enable = enable_psci_bp_hardening, >>>> - }, >>>> - { >>>> - .capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR, >>>> - ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A72), >>>> - .enable = enable_psci_bp_hardening, >>>> - }, >>>> - { >>>> - .capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR, >>>> - ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A73), >>>> - .enable = enable_psci_bp_hardening, >>>> - }, >>>> - { >>>> - .capability = ARM64_HARDEN_BRANCH_PREDICTOR, >>>> - ERRATA_MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A75), >>>> + ERRATA_MIDR_RANGE_LIST(cortex_bp_harden_cpus), >>> >>> Could we just use a macro to generate multiple structs, instead of >>> inventing a new type of struct? >> >> We could. Somehow, I don't think we are over engineering much here. > > There is a flipside to this: I commented elsewhere that not allowing > mutiple match criteria per capability struct complicates verification > for late CPUs and/or makes it more costly. > > Your changes here do implement support for multiple match criteria, > albeit only for the specific case of MIDR matching. > > It could be worth generalising this in the future, but that's > probably not for this series. It is not that complex, right now. See below. > > OTOH, if MIDR matching is the only scenario where we have duplicate > cap structs with different match criteria and this patch allows all > those duplicates to be removed, then is there still a need to walk > the whole list in verify_local_cpu_features(), as introduced in > 67948af41f2e ("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a > capability")? Or can that now be simplified? I have added support for this in my v2. So here is what I have done : 1) Continue to use midr_list for capability entries that just matches MIDRS and share the same enable() call back. and 2) Add support for wrapper entries where a capability is determined by two or more entries with different matches()/enable() call backs. And that can get rid of the changes introduced in commit 67948af41f2e ("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a capability"). Cheers Suzuki