From: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will@kernel.org, ardb@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
steven.price@arm.com, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org,
sudeep.holla@arm.com, robh@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] arm64: realm: Support for probing RSI earlier
Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 09:28:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea10bfcd-0890-4dab-836b-ff3bda946a39@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af2aJKSbWIONhrMK@lpieralisi>
Hi Lorenzo,
On 08/05/2026 09:09, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:35:31AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> The Realm Guest linux support is broken without rodata=full (fortunately default
>> for arm64), as we detect the RSI support after we have created the Linear map
>> with Block/Contiguous mappings. If the boot CPU doesn't support BBML2_NOABORT
>> (there are CPUs out there with FEAT_RME and no - useable - BBML2_NOABORT)
>> we are then not able to split the page tables down to PTE level if the system
>> as such doesn't support BBML2.
>>
>> See the following link for the discussion.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260330161705.3349825-2-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
>>
>> The available options are :
>> 1. Start with PTE level mappings at paging_init() and then "FOLD" the page tables
>> to Block/Cont mappings after we have the full picture available. Looking at the
>> future (with BBML3), this might mean "additional work" for most of the systems
>> at boot. But not bad as splitting them ?
>> 2. Hold the secondary CPUs in busy loop with MMU disabled and split the mappings
>> by the boot CPU with MMU off (if Boot CPU can't support BBML2). This is tricky
>> with the page allocations required to add the page-tables.
>> 3. Move the detection of Realm support earlier to make a better decision for
>> paging_init(), with an added bonus of earlycon support for Realms without
>> the user having to work out the "top bit" for the Realm.
>>
>> This series is an attempt to implement (3) (without the earlycon support). We try
>> to probe the PSCI conduit early from the DT/ACPI. DT is not flattened at this time.
>
> Nit: you mean unflattened here.
Yep, thats right.
>
>> ACPI table is not mapped in full, so we have to map one table at a time and walk
>> from the Root of the table (RSDP) through to XSDT and find the FADT table from
>> the array of table pointers there. Minimal verification is performed on the
>> tables (e.g., revision checks, standard FADT sanity checks). Checksum is not
>> verified, but should be possible to do for the parts we consume.
>
> I went back to tracing acpi_boot_table_init() (joy :)) and it does what you
Welcome back ;-)
> describe here above (it has been a while since I touched that code) relying on
> early_memremap() mappings (as you re-do in this series) before acpi_permanent_mmap
> is set in acpi_early_init() (that happens later in the boot process).
>
> I am sure there are caveats in moving acpi_boot_table_init() before
> paging_init() but I thought I'd mention it in case (3) is what we are
> pursuing (I am most definitely in favour of alternatives if there are
> any).
I believe we might have issues with acpi_table_upgrade(), which would
need access to initramfs for any tables. We may not have the initramfs
mapped by then ? Anyways, FADT cannot be upgraded from the initramfs,
so if we can work out a way to do the necessary may be something
worth checking.
>
>> With arm64, during the normal boot, we could fallback to using DT if the ACPI
>> tables are not useable. So, during the early probe, we try to follow the similar
>> logic and probe the conduit from both DT and ACPI where available. If both of
>> them contain a conduit, we only proceed if they match. Otherwise, we skip the
>> early probe and do things the normal way. (Any sane system shouldn't have such
>> a mismatch, but..)
>>
>> Once we probe the PSCI conduit, PSCI is probed, along with the presence of SMCCC.
>> With that in place, we try to probe the RSI support after the early probe and
>> advertise the Realm World. If the early probe wasn't successful, we fall back
>> to the late mode, where we could end up with (on a possibly rare broken firmware).
>>
>> NOTE: This is an early RFC attempt to moving the PSCI detection earlier. The other
>> option(s) that may be worth exploring are:
>>
>> 1. On systems with EFI, parse this from EFI Stub and pass the data back in the
>> DT Stub, under chosen node. e.g., "linux,uefi-arm-psci-conduit".
>> Challenge: EFI stub doesn't seem to be ACPI aware. We could make that change,
>> we only need a few table walks.
>
> What would we gain compared to (3) above ?
EFI stub has 1x1 map for the areas and we don't have to do the map/unmap
dancein the kernel and potentially end up crashing ourselves.
Suzuki
>
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo
>
>> 2. Have EFI firmware provide this information (with my limited knowledge on the
>> area, this looks like too much work, and bending the standards)
>> 3. Append arm64 boot protocol to have this information passed to the kernel.
>> (Firmware provided) - (Steven's idea)
>> 4. Any other options ?
>>
>>
>> This series is also available here :
>>
>> git@git.gitlab.arm.com:linux-arm/linux-cca.git cca-guest/early-rsi-detection/rfc-v1
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> Suzuki
>>
>>
>> Suzuki K Poulose (4):
>> arm64: acpi: Refactor FADT table verification
>> psci: Add support for Early detection and init
>> arm64: psci: Move detection and SMCCC probe earlier
>> arm64: realm: Move RSI detection earlier
>>
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/rsi.h | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 136 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> arch/arm64/kernel/rsi.c | 23 +++++-
>> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 49 +++++++++++-
>> include/linux/psci.h | 2 +
>> 7 files changed, 252 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-08 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20260429103535.266728-1-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
2026-05-05 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: realm: Support for probing RSI earlier Suzuki K Poulose
2026-05-05 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: acpi: Refactor FADT table verification Suzuki K Poulose
2026-05-05 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] psci: Add support for Early detection and init Suzuki K Poulose
2026-05-05 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: psci: Move detection and SMCCC probe earlier Suzuki K Poulose
2026-05-05 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: realm: Move RSI detection earlier Suzuki K Poulose
2026-05-08 8:09 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] arm64: realm: Support for probing RSI earlier Lorenzo Pieralisi
2026-05-08 8:28 ` Suzuki K Poulose [this message]
2026-05-08 11:05 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
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=ea10bfcd-0890-4dab-836b-ff3bda946a39@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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