Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: cleanup DAIF handling for EL0 returns

From: Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@linux.dev>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, broonie@kernel.org,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] arm64: cleanup DAIF handling for EL0 returns
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 05:53:31 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZcU/S2CysnjLIn0j@vm3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZcTLND4GNTFP53Yg@FVFF77S0Q05N.cambridge.arm.com>

On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 12:38:12PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 11:28:32AM +0900, Itaru Kitayama wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 12:38:45PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > These patches rework DAIF handling when returning to EL0, simplifiying
> > > the logic in do_notify_resume() and allowing Debug + SError to be
> > > unmasked for a little longer during exception return.
> > > 
> > > My primary motivation for these changes is to centralize entry/exit DAIF
> > > management within entry-common.c, as this will allow entry/exit
> > > sequences to be specialised, and make it much easier to add support for
> > > FEAT_NMI. With specialized entry DAIF management, it will also be
> > > possible to simplify local_daif_{save,restore}() and
> > > local_irq_{save,restore}().
> > > 
> > > I'm sending this out on its own as (IMO) it's a nice cleanup on its own,
> > > and I don't believe that I'll have the remainder of the DAIF rework
> > > ready for this cycle.
> > > 
> > > The series is based on v6.8-rc3.
> > > 
> > > Mark.
> > > 
> > > Mark Rutland (3):
> > >   arm64: Simplify do_notify_resume() DAIF masking
> > >   arm64: Move do_notify_resume() to entry-common.c
> > >   arm64: Unmask Debug + SError in do_notify_resume()
> > > 
> > >  arch/arm64/include/asm/exception.h |  2 +-
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c   | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c         | 39 ++----------------------------
> > >  3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Boot tested on RevC FVP and kselftest arm64 subcategory runs without an error
> > on RevC FVP too.
> 
> Thanks for testing! Would you be happy for that to imply a tested-by tag, e.g.
> 
>   Tested-by: Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama@linux.dev>
> 
> ... ?

If it's worth it, yes please.

Thanks,
Itaru.
> 
> Mark.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel