The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, ckadabi@codeaurora.org,
	ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
	will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	jnair@caviumnetworks.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/20] arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 11:35:59 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180208113559.GW5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a1275474-fbf0-91b2-befb-cbd59d5ccf1e@arm.com>

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 06:34:37PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 07/02/18 10:38, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 06:27:58PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>The kernel detects and uses some of the features based on the boot
> >>CPU and expects that all the following CPUs conform to it. e.g,
> >>with VHE and the boot CPU running at EL2, the kernel decides to
> >>keep the kernel running at EL2. If another CPU is brought up without
> >>this capability, we use custom hooks (via check_early_cpu_features())
> >>to handle it. To handle such capabilities add support for detecting
> >>and enabling capabilities based on the boot CPU.
> >>
> >>A bit is added to indicate if the capability should be detected
> >>early on the boot CPU. The infrastructure then ensures that such
> >>capabilities are probed and "enabled" early on in the boot CPU
> >>and, enabled on the subsequent CPUs.
> >>
> >>Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> >>Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> >>Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> >>---
> >>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c      | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >>  2 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h

[...]

> >>   * 3) Verification: When a CPU is brought online (e.g, by user or by the kernel),
> >>   *    the kernel should make sure that it is safe to use the CPU, by verifying
> >>@@ -139,11 +148,22 @@ extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0;
> >>   *
> >>   *    As explained in (2) above, capabilities could be finalised at different
> >>   *    points in the execution. Each CPU is verified against the "finalised"
> >>- *    capabilities and if there is a conflict, the kernel takes an action, based
> >>- *    on the severity (e.g, a CPU could be prevented from booting or cause a
> >>- *    kernel panic). The CPU is allowed to "affect" the state of the capability,
> >>- *    if it has not been finalised already. See section 5 for more details on
> >>- *    conflicts.
> >>+ *    capabilities.
> >>+ *
> >>+ *	x------------------------------------------------------------------- x
> >>+ *	| Verification:       | Boot CPU | SMP CPUs by kernel | CPUs by user |
> >>+ *	|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
> >>+ *	| Primary boot CPU    |          |                    |              |
> >>+ *	|  capability         |   n      |      y             |       y      |
> >>+ *	|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
> >>+ *	| All others          |   n      |      n             |       y      |
> >>+ *	x--------------------------------------------------------------------x
> >
> >Minor clarify nit: it's not obvious that "n" means "no conflict" and "y"
> >means "conflict".
> >
> >Could we have blank cell versus "X" (with a note saying what that
> >means), or "ok" versus "CONFLICT"?
> 
> This is not strictly about conflicts, but about what each CPU get
> verified against.  Since there are multiple stages of "finalisation"

You're right: I meant something like "potential conflict", but I hadn't
read the previous paragraph carefully enough and didn't explain what I
meant very well.

> for the capabilities, the table shows how the CPUs get verified.
> 
> Would it help if I changed the description above the table to :
> 
>  *    As explained in (2) above, capabilities could be finalised at different
>  *    points in the execution. Each CPU is verified against the "finalised"
>  *    capabilities. The following table shows, the capabilities verified
>  *    against each CPU in the system.
>  *
>  *      x------------------------------------------------------------------- x
>  *      | Verified against:   | Boot CPU | SMP CPUs by kernel | CPUs by user |

I still find it a bit cryptic.

Would it be simpler just to write this out in prose, with reference to
the actual capability types?  I feel that things have to be abbreviated
a bit to fit nicely into the table otherwise.

What about:

 * As explained in (2) above, capabilities could be finalised at different
 * points in the execution, depending on the capability type. Each newly booted
 * CPU is verified against those capabilities that have been finalised by the
 * time that CPU boots:
 *
 *	* SCOPE_BOOT_CPU: all CPUs are verified against the capability except
 *	  for the primary boot CPU.
 *
 *	* SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU, SCOPE_SYSTEM: all CPUs hotplugged on by the user
 *	  after kernel boot are verified against the capability.

> >>+ *    If there is a conflict, the kernel takes an action, based on the severity
> >>+ *    (e.g, a CPU could be prevented from booting or cause a kernel panic).
> >>+ *    The CPU is allowed to "affect" the state of the capability, if it has not
> >>+ *    been finalised already. See section 5 for more details on conflicts.
> >>   *
> >>   * 4) Action: As mentioned in (2), the kernel can take an action for each detected
> >>   *    capability, on all CPUs on the system. This is always initiated only after

[...]

Cheers
---Dave

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-08 11:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-31 18:27 [PATCH v2 00/20] arm64: Rework cpu capabilities handling Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 01/20] arm64: capabilities: Update prototype for enable call back Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 11:23   ` Robin Murphy
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 02/20] arm64: capabilities: Move errata work around check on boot CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 14:47     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 03/20] arm64: capabilities: Move errata processing code Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 04/20] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:37   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 15:16     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 15:39       ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 05/20] arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 11:31     ` Robin Murphy
2018-02-07 16:53       ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 06/20] arm64: capabilities: Unify the verification Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 16:56     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 07/20] arm64: capabilities: Filter the entries based on a given mask Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 17:01     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 08/20] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:10     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:12       ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Allow flexibility in scope Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:12         ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 16:10         ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Allow flexibility in scope Dave Martin
2018-02-08 16:31           ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 17:32             ` Dave Martin
2018-02-09 12:16               ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16                 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: capabilities: Prepare for grouping features and errata work arounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16                 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: capabilities: Split the processing of " Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16                 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: capabilities: Allow features based on local CPU scope Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:16                 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 12:19                   ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-09 14:21                 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: capabilities: Allow flexibility in scope Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 09/20] arm64: capabilities: Introduce weak features based on local CPU Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 10/20] arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI detection to boot-time CPUs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 18:15     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 11:05       ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 11/20] arm64: capabilities: Add support for features enabled early Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:38   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-07 18:34     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 11:35       ` Dave Martin [this message]
2018-02-08 11:43         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:27 ` [PATCH v2 12/20] arm64: capabilities: Change scope of VHE to Boot CPU feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 13/20] arm64: capabilities: Clean up midr range helpers Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 14/20] arm64: Add helpers for checking CPU MIDR against a range Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 15/20] arm64: capabilities: Add support for checks based on a list of MIDRs Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 16/20] arm64: Handle shared capability entries Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 10:53     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:01       ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:32         ` Robin Murphy
2018-02-09 10:05           ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:04   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:05     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 17/20] arm64: bp hardening: Allow late CPUs to enable work around Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39   ` Dave Martin
2018-02-08 12:19     ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 12:26       ` Marc Zyngier
2018-02-08 16:58         ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 17:59           ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-08 17:59             ` Suzuki K Poulose
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 18/20] arm64: Add MIDR encoding for Arm Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:39   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 19/20] arm64: Delay enabling hardware DBM feature Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:40   ` Dave Martin
2018-01-31 18:28 ` [PATCH v2 20/20] arm64: Add work around for Arm Cortex-A55 Erratum 1024718 Suzuki K Poulose
2018-02-07 10:40   ` Dave Martin

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=20180208113559.GW5862@e103592.cambridge.arm.com \
    --to=dave.martin@arm.com \
    --cc=Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=ckadabi@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=jnair@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=julien.thierry@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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