[PATCH 0/6] arm64: errata: Add Qualcomm CPUs to the Spectre mitigation lists

[PATCH 0/6] arm64: errata: Add Qualcomm CPUs to the Spectre mitigation lists

[Douglas Anderson]

Since Qualcomm CPUs are all derivatives of ARM cores they all have
unique MIDR values. This means that the tables listing necessary
Spectre mitigations need special entries for them. However, those
entries are not present and that means that some Spectre mitigations
are lacking for Qualcomm CPUs.

I've made an attempt at **GUESSING** what the right patches should be
to enable mitigations for Qualcomm CPUs. This is mostly me searching
the web to figure out what ARM cores various Qualcomm cores are based
off of.

These patches get more and more sketchy as the series progresses and I
have noted that the later patces DON'T EVEN COMPILE. I have included
them to make it obvious that I think these cores are affected even if
I don't have all the right information to mitigate them. Hopefully
Qualcomm can come and fix this mess for me.

I'll note that I am certainly no expert on Spectre. Mostly I ended up
here running `lscpu` on a device and noticing that it thought that it
wasn't affected by Spectre v2 when I thought it was.


Douglas Anderson (6):
  arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list
  arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD to the
    spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list
  arm64: cputype: Add QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_GOLD
  arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_3XX_GOLD to the
    spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list
  arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list
  arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD/PRIME to the
    spectre_bhb_k32_list

 arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 ++
 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c  | 6 ++++++
 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)

-- 
2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog

[PATCH 1/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[Douglas Anderson]

Qualcomm Kryo 400-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
ARM Cortex A76 in them. Since A76 needs Spectre mitigation then the
Kyro 400-series Gold cores also should need Spectre mitigation.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
The "k" value here really should come from analysis by Qualcomm, but
until we can get that analysis let's choose the same value as A76: 24.

Ideally someone from Qualcomm can confirm that this mitigation is
needed and confirm / provide the proper "k" value.

 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
index da53722f95d4..e149efadff20 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
@@ -866,6 +866,7 @@ u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A76),
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A77),
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N1),
+			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
 			{},
 		};
 		static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k11_list[] = {
-- 
2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog

[PATCH 2/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list

[Douglas Anderson]

Qualcomm Kryo 200-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
ARM Cortex A73 in them. Since A73 needs Spectre mitigation then the
Kyro 200-series Gold cores also should need Spectre mitigation.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
I don't really have any good way to test this patch but it seems
likely it's needed. If nothing else the claim is that that Qualcomm
Kyro 280 CPU is vulnerable [1] but I don't see any mitigations in the
kernel for it.

NOTE: presumably this patch won't actually do much on its own because
(I believe) it requires a firmware update to go with it.

[1] https://spectreattack.com/spectre.pdf

 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
index e149efadff20..0437be7c83bc 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
@@ -925,6 +925,7 @@ static bool is_spectre_bhb_fw_affected(int scope)
 	static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list[] = {
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A73),
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A75),
+		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD),
 		{},
 	};
 	bool cpu_in_list = is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(),
-- 
2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog

Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:12AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> Qualcomm Kryo 200-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
> ARM Cortex A73 in them. Since A73 needs Spectre mitigation then the
> Kyro 200-series Gold cores also should need Spectre mitigation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> I don't really have any good way to test this patch but it seems
> likely it's needed. If nothing else the claim is that that Qualcomm
> Kyro 280 CPU is vulnerable [1] but I don't see any mitigations in the
> kernel for it.
> 
> NOTE: presumably this patch won't actually do much on its own because
> (I believe) it requires a firmware update to go with it.

Why? is_spectre_bhb_fw_affected() returns true if (cpu in list OR fw
mitigated)

> 
> [1] https://spectreattack.com/spectre.pdf
> 
>  arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> index e149efadff20..0437be7c83bc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> @@ -925,6 +925,7 @@ static bool is_spectre_bhb_fw_affected(int scope)
>  	static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list[] = {
>  		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A73),
>  		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A75),
> +		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD),
>  		{},
>  	};
>  	bool cpu_in_list = is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(),
> -- 
> 2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list

[Julius Werner]

> > NOTE: presumably this patch won't actually do much on its own because
> > (I believe) it requires a firmware update to go with it.
>
> Why? is_spectre_bhb_fw_affected() returns true if (cpu in list OR fw
> mitigated)

That affects reporting, but the mitigation works by making an
ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_3 Secure Monitor Call to firmware, and that
only works if that call is implemented in firmware. Trusted-Firmware-A
is currently the only open source firmware I'm aware of that
implements this call, and it only supports Kryo 4 and 6 upstream (not
2 or 3).

So in order for this patch to actually be able to do anything other
than report that the mitigation is missing, it would need to run on
devices that either use a downstream fork of TF-A with added Kryo 2/3
support (I doubt this exists because AFAIK Kryo 4 was Qualcomm's first
attempt to use TF-A) or use some other proprietary kind of Secure
Monitor firmware that has this SMC and mitigation implemented
separately. (It seems unlikely that Qualcomm did this in their QTEE
firmware, since if they had they would have probably also added the
MIDRs here to Linux to activate it.)

Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 03:34:59PM -0800, Julius Werner wrote:
> > > NOTE: presumably this patch won't actually do much on its own because
> > > (I believe) it requires a firmware update to go with it.
> >
> > Why? is_spectre_bhb_fw_affected() returns true if (cpu in list OR fw
> > mitigated)
> 
> That affects reporting, but the mitigation works by making an
> ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_3 Secure Monitor Call to firmware, and that
> only works if that call is implemented in firmware. Trusted-Firmware-A
> is currently the only open source firmware I'm aware of that
> implements this call, and it only supports Kryo 4 and 6 upstream (not
> 2 or 3).
> 
> So in order for this patch to actually be able to do anything other
> than report that the mitigation is missing, it would need to run on
> devices that either use a downstream fork of TF-A with added Kryo 2/3
> support (I doubt this exists because AFAIK Kryo 4 was Qualcomm's first
> attempt to use TF-A) or use some other proprietary kind of Secure
> Monitor firmware that has this SMC and mitigation implemented
> separately. (It seems unlikely that Qualcomm did this in their QTEE
> firmware, since if they had they would have probably also added the
> MIDRs here to Linux to activate it.)

Ack, thanks for the detailed explanation.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

[PATCH 3/6] arm64: cputype: Add QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_GOLD

[Douglas Anderson]

Add a definition for the Qualcomm Kryo 300-series Gold cores.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
I have no idea if this is actually right and no way to test it, but it
fits the pattern of the other definitions. Someone from Qualcomm ought
to confirm this.

 arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
index 488f8e751349..c8058f91a5bd 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
@@ -119,6 +119,7 @@
 #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO		0x200
 #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_GOLD	0x800
 #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_SILVER	0x801
+#define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_GOLD	0x802
 #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_SILVER	0x803
 #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_GOLD	0x804
 #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_SILVER	0x805
@@ -195,6 +196,7 @@
 #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO)
 #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_GOLD)
 #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_2XX_SILVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_SILVER)
+#define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_3XX_GOLD MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_GOLD)
 #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_3XX_SILVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_SILVER)
 #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_GOLD)
 #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_SILVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_SILVER)
-- 
2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog

Re: [PATCH 3/6] arm64: cputype: Add QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_GOLD

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:13AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> Add a definition for the Qualcomm Kryo 300-series Gold cores.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> I have no idea if this is actually right and no way to test it, but it
> fits the pattern of the other definitions. Someone from Qualcomm ought
> to confirm this.

This matches what I see on SDM845.

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>


> 
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> index 488f8e751349..c8058f91a5bd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h
> @@ -119,6 +119,7 @@
>  #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO		0x200
>  #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_GOLD	0x800
>  #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_SILVER	0x801
> +#define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_GOLD	0x802
>  #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_SILVER	0x803
>  #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_GOLD	0x804
>  #define QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_SILVER	0x805
> @@ -195,6 +196,7 @@
>  #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO)
>  #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_GOLD)
>  #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_2XX_SILVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_2XX_SILVER)
> +#define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_3XX_GOLD MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_GOLD)
>  #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_3XX_SILVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_3XX_SILVER)
>  #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_GOLD)
>  #define MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_SILVER MIDR_CPU_MODEL(ARM_CPU_IMP_QCOM, QCOM_CPU_PART_KRYO_4XX_SILVER)
> -- 
> 2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

[PATCH 4/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_3XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_firmware_mitigated_list

[Douglas Anderson]

Qualcomm Kryo 300-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
ARM Cortex A75 in them. Since A75 needs Spectre mitigation then the
Kyro 300-series Gold cores also should need Spectre mitigation.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
I have no idea if this is actually needed and this patch is purely
speculative. Given that A75 needs some sort of Spectre mitigation it
seem hard to believe that the Qualcomm Kryo 300-series Gold cores
wouldn't need it.

NOTE: presumably this patch won't actually do much on its own because
(I believe) it requires a firmware update to go with it.

 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
index 0437be7c83bc..b1881964e304 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
@@ -926,6 +926,7 @@ static bool is_spectre_bhb_fw_affected(int scope)
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A73),
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A75),
 		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_2XX_GOLD),
+		MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_3XX_GOLD),
 		{},
 	};
 	bool cpu_in_list = is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(),
-- 
2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog

[PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[Douglas Anderson]

Qualcomm Kryo 500-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
ARM Cortex A77 in them. Since A77 needs Spectre mitigation then the
Kyro 500-series Gold cores also should need Spectre mitigation.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
Yes. I know. This patch DOESN'T COMPILE because
MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD is not defined. That value needs to come from
Qualcomm or from testing on hardware, which I don't have. Qualcomm
needs to chime in to confirm that this Spectre mitigation is correct
anyway, though. I'm including this patch so it's obvious that I think
these cores also need the mitigation.

 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
index b1881964e304..212481726f04 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
@@ -867,6 +867,7 @@ u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A77),
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N1),
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
+			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
 			{},
 		};
 		static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k11_list[] = {
-- 
2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:15AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> Qualcomm Kryo 500-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
> ARM Cortex A77 in them. Since A77 needs Spectre mitigation then the
> Kyro 500-series Gold cores also should need Spectre mitigation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> Yes. I know. This patch DOESN'T COMPILE because
> MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD is not defined. That value needs to come from
> Qualcomm or from testing on hardware, which I don't have. Qualcomm
> needs to chime in to confirm that this Spectre mitigation is correct
> anyway, though. I'm including this patch so it's obvious that I think
> these cores also need the mitigation.

Kryo 5xx (SM8250) identify themselves as 0x41/0xd0d (Gold, Prime) and
0x51/0x805 (Silver)

> 
>  arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> index b1881964e304..212481726f04 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> @@ -867,6 +867,7 @@ u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
>  			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A77),
>  			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N1),
>  			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
> +			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
>  			{},
>  		};
>  		static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k11_list[] = {
> -- 
> 2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 3:07 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:15AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > Qualcomm Kryo 500-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
> > ARM Cortex A77 in them. Since A77 needs Spectre mitigation then the
> > Kyro 500-series Gold cores also should need Spectre mitigation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > Yes. I know. This patch DOESN'T COMPILE because
> > MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD is not defined. That value needs to come from
> > Qualcomm or from testing on hardware, which I don't have. Qualcomm
> > needs to chime in to confirm that this Spectre mitigation is correct
> > anyway, though. I'm including this patch so it's obvious that I think
> > these cores also need the mitigation.
>
> Kryo 5xx (SM8250) identify themselves as 0x41/0xd0d (Gold, Prime) and
> 0x51/0x805 (Silver)

Interesting. So the Gold/Prime are actually IDing themselves as
straight Cortex A77. The Silver is IDing itself the same as
KRYO_4XX_SILVER. ...so in that sense there's nothing to do here for
those cores.


-Doug

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[Julius Werner]

> Interesting. So the Gold/Prime are actually IDing themselves as
> straight Cortex A77. The Silver is IDing itself the same as
> KRYO_4XX_SILVER. ...so in that sense there's nothing to do here for
> those cores.

Should we add some comments to cputype.h to record which other
products are matched under the same ID?

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 05:28:55PM -0800, Julius Werner wrote:
> > Interesting. So the Gold/Prime are actually IDing themselves as
> > straight Cortex A77. The Silver is IDing itself the same as
> > KRYO_4XX_SILVER. ...so in that sense there's nothing to do here for
> > those cores.
> 
> Should we add some comments to cputype.h to record which other
> products are matched under the same ID?

I'd say, yes.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 3:39 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 05:28:55PM -0800, Julius Werner wrote:
> > > Interesting. So the Gold/Prime are actually IDing themselves as
> > > straight Cortex A77. The Silver is IDing itself the same as
> > > KRYO_4XX_SILVER. ...so in that sense there's nothing to do here for
> > > those cores.
> >
> > Should we add some comments to cputype.h to record which other
> > products are matched under the same ID?
>
> I'd say, yes.

Sure. I'll send a v3 with this tomorrow.

-Doug

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[kernel test robot]

Hi Douglas,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on arm64/for-next/core]
[also build test ERROR on arm-perf/for-next/perf kvmarm/next soc/for-next arm/for-next arm/fixes linus/master v6.13-rc2 next-20241210]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Douglas-Anderson/arm64-errata-Add-QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD-to-the-spectre_bhb_k24_list/20241210-014833
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/core
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241209094310.5.I41e227ed809ea607114027209b57d02dc0e98384%40changeid
patch subject: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list
config: arm64-allnoconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241210/202412102250.hPlsx2c8-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241210/202412102250.hPlsx2c8-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202412102250.hPlsx2c8-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   In file included from arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h:43,
                    from include/linux/cache.h:6,
                    from include/linux/jiffies.h:5,
                    from include/linux/ktime.h:25,
                    from include/linux/timer.h:6,
                    from include/linux/workqueue.h:9,
                    from include/linux/bpf.h:10,
                    from arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:21:
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c: In function 'spectre_bhb_loop_affected':
>> arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:870:43: error: 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD'?
     870 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
         |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h:251:26: note: in definition of macro 'MIDR_RANGE'
     251 |                 .model = m,                                     \
         |                          ^
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:870:25: note: in expansion of macro 'MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS'
     870 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:870:43: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
     870 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
         |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h:251:26: note: in definition of macro 'MIDR_RANGE'
     251 |                 .model = m,                                     \
         |                          ^
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:870:25: note: in expansion of macro 'MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS'
     870 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


vim +870 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c

   843	
   844	/*
   845	 * This must be called with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU for each type of CPU, before any
   846	 * SCOPE_SYSTEM call will give the right answer.
   847	 */
   848	u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
   849	{
   850		u8 k = 0;
   851		static u8 max_bhb_k;
   852	
   853		if (scope == SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) {
   854			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k32_list[] = {
   855				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78),
   856				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78AE),
   857				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78C),
   858				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X1),
   859				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A710),
   860				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X2),
   861				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N2),
   862				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_V1),
   863				{},
   864			};
   865			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k24_list[] = {
   866				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A76),
   867				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A77),
   868				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N1),
   869				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
 > 870				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
   871				{},
   872			};
   873			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k11_list[] = {
   874				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_AMPERE1),
   875				{},
   876			};
   877			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k8_list[] = {
   878				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A72),
   879				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A57),
   880				{},
   881			};
   882	
   883			if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k32_list))
   884				k = 32;
   885			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k24_list))
   886				k = 24;
   887			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k11_list))
   888				k = 11;
   889			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k8_list))
   890				k =  8;
   891	
   892			max_bhb_k = max(max_bhb_k, k);
   893		} else {
   894			k = max_bhb_k;
   895		}
   896	
   897		return k;
   898	}
   899	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list

[kernel test robot]

Hi Douglas,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on arm64/for-next/core]
[also build test ERROR on arm-perf/for-next/perf kvmarm/next soc/for-next arm/for-next arm/fixes linus/master v6.13-rc2 next-20241210]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Douglas-Anderson/arm64-errata-Add-QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD-to-the-spectre_bhb_k24_list/20241210-014833
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/core
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241209094310.5.I41e227ed809ea607114027209b57d02dc0e98384%40changeid
patch subject: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD to the spectre_bhb_k24_list
config: arm64-randconfig-002-20241210 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241210/202412102224.bmEeK15u-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 20.0.0git (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 592c0fe55f6d9a811028b5f3507be91458ab2713)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241210/202412102224.bmEeK15u-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202412102224.bmEeK15u-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   In file included from arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:21:
   In file included from include/linux/bpf.h:21:
   In file included from include/linux/kallsyms.h:13:
   In file included from include/linux/mm.h:2223:
   include/linux/vmstat.h:504:43: warning: arithmetic between different enumeration types ('enum zone_stat_item' and 'enum numa_stat_item') [-Wenum-enum-conversion]
     504 |         return vmstat_text[NR_VM_ZONE_STAT_ITEMS +
         |                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
     505 |                            item];
         |                            ~~~~
   include/linux/vmstat.h:511:43: warning: arithmetic between different enumeration types ('enum zone_stat_item' and 'enum numa_stat_item') [-Wenum-enum-conversion]
     511 |         return vmstat_text[NR_VM_ZONE_STAT_ITEMS +
         |                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
     512 |                            NR_VM_NUMA_EVENT_ITEMS +
         |                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   include/linux/vmstat.h:518:36: warning: arithmetic between different enumeration types ('enum node_stat_item' and 'enum lru_list') [-Wenum-enum-conversion]
     518 |         return node_stat_name(NR_LRU_BASE + lru) + 3; // skip "nr_"
         |                               ~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ~~~
   include/linux/vmstat.h:524:43: warning: arithmetic between different enumeration types ('enum zone_stat_item' and 'enum numa_stat_item') [-Wenum-enum-conversion]
     524 |         return vmstat_text[NR_VM_ZONE_STAT_ITEMS +
         |                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^
     525 |                            NR_VM_NUMA_EVENT_ITEMS +
         |                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:870:22: error: use of undeclared identifier 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD'
     870 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
         |                                           ^
   4 warnings and 1 error generated.


vim +/MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD +870 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c

   843	
   844	/*
   845	 * This must be called with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU for each type of CPU, before any
   846	 * SCOPE_SYSTEM call will give the right answer.
   847	 */
   848	u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
   849	{
   850		u8 k = 0;
   851		static u8 max_bhb_k;
   852	
   853		if (scope == SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) {
   854			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k32_list[] = {
   855				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78),
   856				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78AE),
   857				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78C),
   858				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X1),
   859				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A710),
   860				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X2),
   861				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N2),
   862				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_V1),
   863				{},
   864			};
   865			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k24_list[] = {
   866				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A76),
   867				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A77),
   868				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N1),
   869				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
 > 870				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
   871				{},
   872			};
   873			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k11_list[] = {
   874				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_AMPERE1),
   875				{},
   876			};
   877			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k8_list[] = {
   878				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A72),
   879				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A57),
   880				{},
   881			};
   882	
   883			if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k32_list))
   884				k = 32;
   885			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k24_list))
   886				k = 24;
   887			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k11_list))
   888				k = 11;
   889			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k8_list))
   890				k =  8;
   891	
   892			max_bhb_k = max(max_bhb_k, k);
   893		} else {
   894			k = max_bhb_k;
   895		}
   896	
   897		return k;
   898	}
   899	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

[PATCH 6/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD/PRIME to the spectre_bhb_k32_list

[Douglas Anderson]

Qualcomm Kryo 600-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
ARM Cortex A78 / ARM Cortex X1 in them. Since these need Spectre
mitigation then the Kyro 600-series Gold/Prime cores also should need
Spectre mitigation.

Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
---
Yes. I know. This patch DOESN'T COMPILE because
MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD and MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME are not
defined. Those value needs to come from Qualcomm or from testing on
hardware, which I don't have. Qualcomm needs to chime in to confirm
that this Spectre mitigation is correct anyway, though. I'm including
this patch so it's obvious that I think these cores also need the
mitigation.

 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
index 212481726f04..67aa54017dea 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
@@ -860,6 +860,8 @@ u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X2),
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N2),
 			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_V1),
+			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD),
+			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME),
 			{},
 		};
 		static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k24_list[] = {
-- 
2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD/PRIME to the spectre_bhb_k32_list

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:16AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> Qualcomm Kryo 600-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
> ARM Cortex A78 / ARM Cortex X1 in them. Since these need Spectre
> mitigation then the Kyro 600-series Gold/Prime cores also should need
> Spectre mitigation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> Yes. I know. This patch DOESN'T COMPILE because
> MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD and MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME are not
> defined. Those value needs to come from Qualcomm or from testing on
> hardware, which I don't have. Qualcomm needs to chime in to confirm
> that this Spectre mitigation is correct anyway, though. I'm including
> this patch so it's obvious that I think these cores also need the
> mitigation.

SM8350 (Kryo 680) identifies itself as 0x41/0xd44 (Prime), 0x41/0xd41
(Gold) and 0x41/0xd05 (Silver)

> 
>  arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> index 212481726f04..67aa54017dea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c
> @@ -860,6 +860,8 @@ u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
>  			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X2),
>  			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N2),
>  			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_V1),
> +			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD),
> +			MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME),
>  			{},
>  		};
>  		static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k24_list[] = {
> -- 
> 2.47.0.338.g60cca15819-goog
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD/PRIME to the spectre_bhb_k32_list

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 3:09 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:16AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > Qualcomm Kryo 600-series Gold cores appear to have a derivative of an
> > ARM Cortex A78 / ARM Cortex X1 in them. Since these need Spectre
> > mitigation then the Kyro 600-series Gold/Prime cores also should need
> > Spectre mitigation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > Yes. I know. This patch DOESN'T COMPILE because
> > MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD and MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME are not
> > defined. Those value needs to come from Qualcomm or from testing on
> > hardware, which I don't have. Qualcomm needs to chime in to confirm
> > that this Spectre mitigation is correct anyway, though. I'm including
> > this patch so it's obvious that I think these cores also need the
> > mitigation.
>
> SM8350 (Kryo 680) identifies itself as 0x41/0xd44 (Prime), 0x41/0xd41
> (Gold) and 0x41/0xd05 (Silver)

Wow, all standard ARM cores. OK, I guess we can drop this patch too then. Nice!


-Doug

Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD/PRIME to the spectre_bhb_k32_list

[kernel test robot]

Hi Douglas,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on arm64/for-next/core]
[also build test ERROR on arm-perf/for-next/perf kvmarm/next soc/for-next arm/for-next arm/fixes linus/master v6.13-rc2 next-20241210]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Douglas-Anderson/arm64-errata-Add-QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD-to-the-spectre_bhb_k24_list/20241210-014833
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/core
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241209094310.6.I722621804be859e4ae4b7479ce191c5e3367b37c%40changeid
patch subject: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: errata: Add QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD/PRIME to the spectre_bhb_k32_list
config: arm64-allnoconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241211/202412110032.Sku0iZvD-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 14.2.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241211/202412110032.Sku0iZvD-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202412110032.Sku0iZvD-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   In file included from arch/arm64/include/asm/cache.h:43,
                    from include/linux/cache.h:6,
                    from include/linux/jiffies.h:5,
                    from include/linux/ktime.h:25,
                    from include/linux/timer.h:6,
                    from include/linux/workqueue.h:9,
                    from include/linux/bpf.h:10,
                    from arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:21:
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c: In function 'spectre_bhb_loop_affected':
>> arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:863:43: error: 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD'?
     863 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD),
         |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h:251:26: note: in definition of macro 'MIDR_RANGE'
     251 |                 .model = m,                                     \
         |                          ^
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:863:25: note: in expansion of macro 'MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS'
     863 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD),
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:863:43: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
     863 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD),
         |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h:251:26: note: in definition of macro 'MIDR_RANGE'
     251 |                 .model = m,                                     \
         |                          ^
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:863:25: note: in expansion of macro 'MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS'
     863 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD),
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:864:43: error: 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_3XX_SILVER'?
     864 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME),
         |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h:251:26: note: in definition of macro 'MIDR_RANGE'
     251 |                 .model = m,                                     \
         |                          ^
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:864:25: note: in expansion of macro 'MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS'
     864 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME),
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:872:43: error: 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD'?
     872 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
         |                                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h:251:26: note: in definition of macro 'MIDR_RANGE'
     251 |                 .model = m,                                     \
         |                          ^
   arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c:872:25: note: in expansion of macro 'MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS'
     872 |                         MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
         |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


vim +863 arch/arm64/kernel/proton-pack.c

   843	
   844	/*
   845	 * This must be called with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU for each type of CPU, before any
   846	 * SCOPE_SYSTEM call will give the right answer.
   847	 */
   848	u8 spectre_bhb_loop_affected(int scope)
   849	{
   850		u8 k = 0;
   851		static u8 max_bhb_k;
   852	
   853		if (scope == SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) {
   854			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k32_list[] = {
   855				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78),
   856				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78AE),
   857				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A78C),
   858				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X1),
   859				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A710),
   860				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_X2),
   861				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N2),
   862				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_V1),
 > 863				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_GOLD),
 > 864				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_6XX_PRIME),
   865				{},
   866			};
   867			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k24_list[] = {
   868				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A76),
   869				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A77),
   870				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_NEOVERSE_N1),
   871				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_4XX_GOLD),
   872				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_QCOM_KRYO_5XX_GOLD),
   873				{},
   874			};
   875			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k11_list[] = {
   876				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_AMPERE1),
   877				{},
   878			};
   879			static const struct midr_range spectre_bhb_k8_list[] = {
   880				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A72),
   881				MIDR_ALL_VERSIONS(MIDR_CORTEX_A57),
   882				{},
   883			};
   884	
   885			if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k32_list))
   886				k = 32;
   887			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k24_list))
   888				k = 24;
   889			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k11_list))
   890				k = 11;
   891			else if (is_midr_in_range_list(read_cpuid_id(), spectre_bhb_k8_list))
   892				k =  8;
   893	
   894			max_bhb_k = max(max_bhb_k, k);
   895		} else {
   896			k = max_bhb_k;
   897		}
   898	
   899		return k;
   900	}
   901	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki

Re: [PATCH 0/6] arm64: errata: Add Qualcomm CPUs to the Spectre mitigation lists

[Will Deacon]

Hi Doug,

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:10AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> 
> Since Qualcomm CPUs are all derivatives of ARM cores they all have
> unique MIDR values. This means that the tables listing necessary
> Spectre mitigations need special entries for them. However, those
> entries are not present and that means that some Spectre mitigations
> are lacking for Qualcomm CPUs.
> 
> I've made an attempt at **GUESSING** what the right patches should be
> to enable mitigations for Qualcomm CPUs. This is mostly me searching
> the web to figure out what ARM cores various Qualcomm cores are based
> off of.
> 
> These patches get more and more sketchy as the series progresses and I
> have noted that the later patces DON'T EVEN COMPILE. I have included
> them to make it obvious that I think these cores are affected even if
> I don't have all the right information to mitigate them. Hopefully
> Qualcomm can come and fix this mess for me.
> 
> I'll note that I am certainly no expert on Spectre. Mostly I ended up
> here running `lscpu` on a device and noticing that it thought that it
> wasn't affected by Spectre v2 when I thought it was.

Whilst only Qualcomm can say definitively whether or not they are
affected (and what values of 'k' are required for the loop-based
workarounds), I can't help but wonder whether the current mitigation
code is structured the wrong way around in this case.

It looks to me like we don't have a way to identify a "vulnerable" CPU
for Spectre-BHB; either a CPU has some sort of mitigation or it's
unaffected. That means that there's very little incentive for vendors
to add their CPUs to one of the lists -- if they do nothing, userspace
is told that everything is golden and they don't pay the performance
hit of a workaround!

So I think we should consider turning this on its head and assume that
CPUs we don't know about are vulnerable, having a list of unaffected
cores that predate the introduction of CSV2.3 which can be queried by
is_spectre_bhb_affected(). We can do that without the assistance of the
CPU vendors.

Does that make sense, or did I miss something?

Will

Re: [PATCH 0/6] arm64: errata: Add Qualcomm CPUs to the Spectre mitigation lists

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 7:56 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:10AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Since Qualcomm CPUs are all derivatives of ARM cores they all have
> > unique MIDR values. This means that the tables listing necessary
> > Spectre mitigations need special entries for them. However, those
> > entries are not present and that means that some Spectre mitigations
> > are lacking for Qualcomm CPUs.
> >
> > I've made an attempt at **GUESSING** what the right patches should be
> > to enable mitigations for Qualcomm CPUs. This is mostly me searching
> > the web to figure out what ARM cores various Qualcomm cores are based
> > off of.
> >
> > These patches get more and more sketchy as the series progresses and I
> > have noted that the later patces DON'T EVEN COMPILE. I have included
> > them to make it obvious that I think these cores are affected even if
> > I don't have all the right information to mitigate them. Hopefully
> > Qualcomm can come and fix this mess for me.
> >
> > I'll note that I am certainly no expert on Spectre. Mostly I ended up
> > here running `lscpu` on a device and noticing that it thought that it
> > wasn't affected by Spectre v2 when I thought it was.
>
> Whilst only Qualcomm can say definitively whether or not they are
> affected (and what values of 'k' are required for the loop-based
> workarounds), I can't help but wonder whether the current mitigation
> code is structured the wrong way around in this case.
>
> It looks to me like we don't have a way to identify a "vulnerable" CPU
> for Spectre-BHB; either a CPU has some sort of mitigation or it's
> unaffected. That means that there's very little incentive for vendors
> to add their CPUs to one of the lists -- if they do nothing, userspace
> is told that everything is golden and they don't pay the performance
> hit of a workaround!
>
> So I think we should consider turning this on its head and assume that
> CPUs we don't know about are vulnerable, having a list of unaffected
> cores that predate the introduction of CSV2.3 which can be queried by
> is_spectre_bhb_affected(). We can do that without the assistance of the
> CPU vendors.
>
> Does that make sense, or did I miss something?

It makes sense to me. I'm not sure I'd be the best person to actually
implement that, though. Maybe someone CCed on this thread could take a
stab at it? It seems like folks from ARM would know the most about the
various mitigations and which pre-CSV2.3 cores were safe.

-Doug

Re: [PATCH 0/6] arm64: errata: Add Qualcomm CPUs to the Spectre mitigation lists

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 08:53:46AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 7:56 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:43:10AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > Since Qualcomm CPUs are all derivatives of ARM cores they all have
> > > unique MIDR values. This means that the tables listing necessary
> > > Spectre mitigations need special entries for them. However, those
> > > entries are not present and that means that some Spectre mitigations
> > > are lacking for Qualcomm CPUs.
> > >
> > > I've made an attempt at **GUESSING** what the right patches should be
> > > to enable mitigations for Qualcomm CPUs. This is mostly me searching
> > > the web to figure out what ARM cores various Qualcomm cores are based
> > > off of.
> > >
> > > These patches get more and more sketchy as the series progresses and I
> > > have noted that the later patces DON'T EVEN COMPILE. I have included
> > > them to make it obvious that I think these cores are affected even if
> > > I don't have all the right information to mitigate them. Hopefully
> > > Qualcomm can come and fix this mess for me.
> > >
> > > I'll note that I am certainly no expert on Spectre. Mostly I ended up
> > > here running `lscpu` on a device and noticing that it thought that it
> > > wasn't affected by Spectre v2 when I thought it was.
> >
> > Whilst only Qualcomm can say definitively whether or not they are
> > affected (and what values of 'k' are required for the loop-based
> > workarounds), I can't help but wonder whether the current mitigation
> > code is structured the wrong way around in this case.
> >
> > It looks to me like we don't have a way to identify a "vulnerable" CPU
> > for Spectre-BHB; either a CPU has some sort of mitigation or it's
> > unaffected. That means that there's very little incentive for vendors
> > to add their CPUs to one of the lists -- if they do nothing, userspace
> > is told that everything is golden and they don't pay the performance
> > hit of a workaround!
> >
> > So I think we should consider turning this on its head and assume that
> > CPUs we don't know about are vulnerable, having a list of unaffected
> > cores that predate the introduction of CSV2.3 which can be queried by
> > is_spectre_bhb_affected(). We can do that without the assistance of the
> > CPU vendors.
> >
> > Does that make sense, or did I miss something?
> 
> It makes sense to me. I'm not sure I'd be the best person to actually
> implement that, though. Maybe someone CCed on this thread could take a
> stab at it? It seems like folks from ARM would know the most about the
> various mitigations and which pre-CSV2.3 cores were safe.

I think we could start with an empty list tbh. If you take a stab at it,
I'm happy to review it. Folks with knowledge about the specific CPUs
can send patches on top.

Will