From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: R Sricharan Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:43:22 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/2] ARM: mmu: Set domain permissions to client access In-Reply-To: <20130203162549.2aa48cd2@lilith> References: <1357668505-30559-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <20130203151710.062f20ea@lilith> <510E71D5.6080000@ti.com> <510E728C.8010605@ti.com> <20130203162549.2aa48cd2@lilith> Message-ID: <510E8CA2.7020905@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sunday 03 February 2013 08:55 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi R, > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 19:52:04 +0530, R Sricharan > 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 >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [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