Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: errata: Work around AmpereOne's erratum AC03_CPU_36

D Scott Phillips
2025-04-25T02:41:34Z

Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> writes:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 16:47:10 +0100,
> D Scott Phillips <scott@os.amperecomputing.com> wrote:
>>
>> AC03_CPU_36 can cause asynchronous exceptions to be routed to the wrong
>> exception level if an async exception coincides with an update to the
>> controls for the target exception level in HCR_EL2. On affected
>> machines, always do writes to HCR_EL2 with async exceptions blocked.
>
> From the actual errata document [1]:
>
> <quote>
> If an Asynchronous Exception to EL2 occurs, while EL2 software is
> changing the EL2 exception control bits from a configuration where
> asynchronous exceptions are routed to EL2 to a configuration where
> asynchronous exceptions are routed to EL1, the processor may exhibit
> the incorrect exception behavior of routing an interrupt taken at EL2
> to EL1. The affected system register is HCR_EL2, which contains
> control bits for routing and enabling of EL2 exceptions.
> </quote>
>
> My reading is that things can go wrong when clearing the xMO bits.
>
> I don't think we need to touch the xMO bits at all when running
> VHE. So my preference would be to:
>
> - simply leave the xMO bits set at all times (nothing bad can happen
> from that, can it?)
>
> - prevent these systems from using anything but VHE (and fail KVM init
> otherwise)

Hi Marc, I started writing up this patch and then realized that the
issue can also not happen in nvhe mode. While xMO bits are modified
there, async exceptions are always masked and so the "simultaneously
take an async exception" part of the erratum can't happen.

Does that sound right to you, or are there cases that I'm missing. If
it's right the nvhe is also can't hit the erratum case, then what do you
think is the right thing for me to do here?

Thanks,

Scott