[U-Boot] [PATCH 0/2] ARM: mmu: Set domain permissions to client access

[R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com>]

On Sunday 03 February 2013 08:55 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hi R,
>
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 19:52:04 +0530, R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> On Sunday 03 February 2013 07:49 PM, R Sricharan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sunday 03 February 2013 07:47 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>>>> Hi R Sicharan, Vincent,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 23:38:22 +0530, R Sricharan <r.sricharan@ti.com>
>>>> wrote: i meant
>>>>
>>>>> Currently for ARM based cpu's, mmu pagetable attributes are set with
>>>>> manager permissions for all 4GB address space. Because of this the
>>>>> 'execute never (XN)' permission is never checked on read sensitive
>>>>> regions which results in speculative aborts.
>>>>>
>>>>> This series changes the domain permissions of the full 4GB space
>>>>> to client access for OMAP socs. This avoids all the speculative
>>>>> aborts that are currently seen on OMAP5 secure devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested on OMAP5 SDP (HS) soc.
>>>>>
>>>>> This series depends on [1] the patch sent by
>>>>> <Vincent Stehle <v-stehle@ti.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg102709.html
>>>>>
>>>>> R Sricharan (2):
>>>>>     ARM: mmu: Introduce weak dram_bank_setup function
>>>>>     ARM: mmu: Set domain permissions to client access
>>>>>
>>>>>    arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c                  |    3 ++
>>>>>    arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/hwinit-common.c |   35
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    arch/arm/include/asm/cache.h                   |    1 +
>>>>>    arch/arm/include/asm/system.h                  |   14 ++++++++++
>>>>>    arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c                      |   13 ++++++++-
>>>>>    5 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean the rest of Vincent's patch set is not needed any more?
>>>    Except for one patch that i have mentioned, rest are needed
>>>
>>>     http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg102709.html
>>>
>>    Sorry..
>>    i meant Except for one patch, rest are "not needed"
>
> Sorry, I may not have made myself clear enough. Does your patchset
> replace Vincent's patches 2/3 and 3/3 and should I consider them
> "superseded"?
   Yes, you are correct.

Regards,
  Sricharan