From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757096AbdEKPnL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 11 May 2017 11:43:11 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:49830 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1757055AbdEKPm6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 11 May 2017 11:42:58 -0400
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 16:42:19 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>, marc.zyngier@arm.com
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path
Message-ID: <20170511154219.GC19626@leverpostej>
References: <1494514878-26878-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <498b2e16-538a-d5ea-7843-2ebbff2007df@arm.com>
 <20170511153719.GB19626@leverpostej>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170511153719.GB19626@leverpostej>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:15:38PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > On 11/05/17 16:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >+static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
> > >+{
> > >+	if (static_branch_likely(&arm64_const_caps_ready))
> > >+		return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> > >+	else
> > >+		return cpus_have_cap(num);
> > 
> > We use cpus_have_const_cap() from hyp code, via has_vhe() and we could potentially
> > try to access unmapped kernel data from hyp if we fallback to cpus_have_cap().
> > However, it looks like we have already set arm64_const_caps_ready, so should not
> > hit it in practise. May be we could add a stricter version of the helper ?
> > 
> > static inline cpus_have_const_cap_strict(int num)
> > {
> > 	BUG_ON(!static_branch_likely(&arm64_const_caps_ready);
> > 	return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
> > }
> 
> Just to check, is that the only user of cpus_have_const_cap() at hyp?
> 
> If so, I can do something like the above, patching <asm/virt.h> to use
> it for has_vhe().
> 
> We don't have a BUG handler at hyp, but that should trigger a hyp panic,
> which I guess is good enough.
> 
> Marc, thoughts?

The other option, given this is *only* used at hyp, is:

static inline bool has_vhe(void)
{
	return !!(read_sysreg(HCR_EL2) & HCR_E2H);
}

... though I assume we may have avoided that deliberately.

Thanks,
Mark.