- 28 Mar, 2018 3 commits
-
-
Dave Martin authored
When the hardend usercopy support was added for arm64, it was concluded that all cases of usercopy into and out of thread_struct were statically sized and so didn't require explicit whitelisting of the appropriate fields in thread_struct. Testing with usercopy hardening enabled has revealed that this is not the case for certain ptrace regset manipulation calls on arm64. This occurs because the sizes of usercopies associated with the regset API are dynamic by construction, and because arm64 does not always stage such copies via the stack: indeed the regset API is designed to avoid the need for that by adding some bounds checking. This is currently believed to affect only the fpsimd and TLS registers. Because the whitelisted fields in thread_struct must be contiguous, this patch groups them together in a nested struct. It is also necessary to be able to determine the location and size of that struct, so rather than making the struct anonymous (which would save on edits elsewhere) or adding an anonymous union containing named and unnamed instances of the same struct (gross), this patch gives the struct a name and makes the necessary edits to code that references it (noisy but simple). Care is needed to ensure that the new struct does not contain padding (which the usercopy hardening would fail to protect). For this reason, the presence of tp2_value is made unconditional, since a padding field would be needed there in any case. This pads up to the 16-byte alignment required by struct user_fpsimd_state. Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Fixes: 9e8084d3 ("arm64: Implement thread_struct whitelist for hardened usercopy") Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Dave Martin authored
In preparation for using a common representation of the FPSIMD state for tasks and KVM vcpus, this patch separates out the "cpu" field that is used to track the cpu on which the state was most recently loaded. This will allow common code to operate on task and vcpu contexts without requiring the cpu field to be stored at the same offset from the FPSIMD register data in both cases. This should avoid the need for messing with the definition of those parts of struct vcpu_arch that are exposed in the KVM user ABI. The resulting change is also convenient for grouping and defining the set of thread_struct fields that are supposed to be accessible to copy_{to,from}_user(), which includes user_fpsimd_state but should exclude the cpu field. This patch does not amend the usercopy whitelist to match: that will be addressed in a subsequent patch. Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> [will: inline fpsimd_flush_state for now] Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Philip Elcan authored
Several of the bits of the TLBI register operand are RES0 per the ARM ARM, so TLBI operations should avoid writing non-zero values to these bits. This patch adds a macro __TLBI_VADDR(addr, asid) that creates the operand register in the correct format and honors the RES0 bits. Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Philip Elcan <pelcan@codeaurora.org> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 27 Mar, 2018 9 commits
-
-
Will Deacon authored
We need linux/compiler.h for unreachable(), so #include it here. Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Will Deacon authored
We want to avoid pulling linux/preempt.h into cmpxchg.h, since that can introduce a circular dependency on linux/bitops.h. linux/preempt.h is only needed by the per-cpu cmpxchg implementation, which is better off alongside the per-cpu xchg implementation in percpu.h, so move it there and add the missing #include. Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Will Deacon authored
Having asm/cmpxchg.h pull in linux/bug.h is problematic because this ends up pulling in the atomic bitops which themselves may be built on top of atomic.h and cmpxchg.h. Instead, just include build_bug.h for the definition of BUILD_BUG. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Will Deacon authored
When the LL/SC atomics are moved out-of-line, they are annotated as notrace and exported to modules. Ensure we pull in the relevant include files so that these macros are defined when we need them. Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Will Deacon authored
fpsimd.h uses the __init annotation, so pull in linux/init.h Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Alexander Monakov authored
If there is exactly one CPU present, there is no ambiguity: do not warn that PMU setup would need to guess IRQ affinity. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Arnd Bergmann authored
On linux-next, I get a build failure in some configurations: drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c: In function 'arm_spe_pmu_setup_aux': drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:857:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'vmap'; did you mean 'swap'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] buf->base = vmap(pglist, nr_pages, VM_MAP, PAGE_KERNEL); ^~~~ swap drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:857:37: error: 'VM_MAP' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'VM_MPX'? buf->base = vmap(pglist, nr_pages, VM_MAP, PAGE_KERNEL); ^~~~~~ VM_MPX drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:857:37: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c: In function 'arm_spe_pmu_free_aux': drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:878:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'vunmap'; did you mean 'iounmap'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] vmap() is declared in linux/vmalloc.h, so we should include that header file. Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> [will: add additional missing #includes reported by Mark] Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Will Deacon authored
This reverts commit 1f85b42a. The internal dma-direct.h API has changed in -next, which collides with us trying to use it to manage non-coherent DMA devices on systems with unreasonably large cache writeback granules. This isn't at all trivial to resolve, so revert our changes for now and we can revisit this after the merge window. Effectively, this just restores our behaviour back to that of 4.16. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Will Deacon authored
An allnoconfig build complains about unused symbols due to functions that are called via conditional cpufeature and cpu_errata table entries. Annotate these as __maybe_unused if they are likely to be generic, or predicate their compilation on the same option as the table entry if they are specific to a given alternative. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 26 Mar, 2018 23 commits
-
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Some variants of the Arm Cortex-55 cores (r0p0, r0p1, r1p0) suffer from an erratum 1024718, which causes incorrect updates when DBM/AP bits in a page table entry is modified without a break-before-make sequence. The work around is to skip enabling the hardware DBM feature on the affected cores. The hardware Access Flag management features is not affected. There are some other cores suffering from this errata, which could be added to the midr_list to trigger the work around. Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: ckadabi@codeaurora.org Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
We enable hardware DBM bit in a capable CPU, very early in the boot via __cpu_setup. This doesn't give us a flexibility of optionally disable the feature, as the clearing the bit is a bit costly as the TLB can cache the settings. Instead, we delay enabling the feature until the CPU is brought up into the kernel. We use the feature capability mechanism to handle it. The hardware DBM is a non-conflicting feature. i.e, the kernel can safely run with a mix of CPUs with some using the feature and the others don't. So, it is safe for a late CPU to have this capability and enable it, even if the active CPUs don't. To get this handled properly by the infrastructure, we unconditionally set the capability and only enable it on CPUs which really have the feature. Also, we print the feature detection from the "matches" call back to make sure we don't mislead the user when none of the CPUs could use the feature. Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Update the MIDR encodings for the Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35 Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap. This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations of a capability by maintaining list of matches + cpu_enable callbacks. To avoid complicating the prototypes for the "matches()", we use arm64_cpu_capabilities maintain the list and we ignore all the other fields except the matches & cpu_enable. This ensures : 1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects 2) Action is only taken for the entries that "matches". This avoids explicit checks in the cpu_enable() take some action. The only constraint here is that, all the entries should have the same "type" (i.e, scope and conflict rules). If a cpu_enable() method is associated with multiple matches for a single capability, care should be taken that either the match criteria are mutually exclusive, or that the method is robust against being called multiple times. This also reverts the changes introduced by commit 67948af4 ("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a capability"). Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Add helpers for detecting an errata on list of midr ranges of affected CPUs, with the same work around. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Add helpers for checking if the given CPU midr falls in a range of variants/revisions for a given model. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
We are about to introduce generic MIDR range helpers. Clean up the existing helpers in erratum handling, preparing them to use generic version. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
We expect all CPUs to be running at the same EL inside the kernel with or without VHE enabled and we have strict checks to ensure that any mismatch triggers a kernel panic. If VHE is enabled, we use the feature based on the boot CPU and all other CPUs should follow. This makes it a perfect candidate for a capability based on the boot CPU, which should be matched by all the CPUs (both when is ON and OFF). This saves us some not-so-pretty hooks and special code, just for verifying the conflict. The patch also makes the VHE capability entry depend on CONFIG_ARM64_VHE. Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
The kernel detects and uses some of the features based on the boot CPU and expects that all the following CPUs conform to it. e.g, with VHE and the boot CPU running at EL2, the kernel decides to keep the kernel running at EL2. If another CPU is brought up without this capability, we use custom hooks (via check_early_cpu_features()) to handle it. To handle such capabilities add support for detecting and enabling capabilities based on the boot CPU. A bit is added to indicate if the capability should be detected early on the boot CPU. The infrastructure then ensures that such capabilities are probed and "enabled" early on in the boot CPU and, enabled on the subsequent CPUs. Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
KPTI is treated as a system wide feature and is only detected if all the CPUs in the sysetm needs the defense, unless it is forced via kernel command line. This leaves a system with a mix of CPUs with and without the defense vulnerable. Also, if a late CPU needs KPTI but KPTI was not activated at boot time, the CPU is currently allowed to boot, which is a potential security vulnerability. This patch ensures that the KPTI is turned on if at least one CPU detects the capability (i.e, change scope to SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU). Also rejetcs a late CPU, if it requires the defense, when the system hasn't enabled it, Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Now that we have the flexibility of defining system features based on individual CPUs, introduce CPU feature type that can be detected on a local SCOPE and ignores the conflict on late CPUs. This is applicable for ARM64_HAS_NO_HW_PREFETCH, where it is fine for the system to have CPUs without hardware prefetch turning up later. We only suffer a performance penalty, nothing fatal. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Now that the features and errata workarounds have the same rules and flow, group the handling of the tables. Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
So far we have treated the feature capabilities as system wide and this wouldn't help with features that could be detected locally on one or more CPUs (e.g, KPTI, Software prefetch). This patch splits the feature detection to two phases : 1) Local CPU features are checked on all boot time active CPUs. 2) System wide features are checked only once after all CPUs are active. Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Right now we run through the errata workarounds check on all boot active CPUs, with SCOPE_ALL. This wouldn't help for detecting erratum workarounds with a SYSTEM_SCOPE. There are none yet, but we plan to introduce some: let us clean this up so that such workarounds can be detected and enabled correctly. So, we run the checks with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU on all CPUs and SCOPE_SYSTEM checks are run only once after all the boot time CPUs are active. Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
We are about to group the handling of all capabilities (features and errata workarounds). This patch open codes the wrapper routines to make it easier to merge the handling. Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
While processing the list of capabilities, it is useful to filter out some of the entries based on the given mask for the scope of the capabilities to allow better control. This can be used later for handling LOCAL vs SYSTEM wide capabilities and more. All capabilities should have their scope set to either LOCAL_CPU or SYSTEM. No functional/flow change. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Now that each capability describes how to treat the conflicts of CPU cap state vs System wide cap state, we can unify the verification logic to a single place. Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | |-----------------------------| | a | y | n | |-----------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled. ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability. Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
We have errata work around processing code in cpu_errata.c, which calls back into helpers defined in cpufeature.c. Now that we are going to make the handling of capabilities generic, by adding the information to each capability, move the errata work around specific processing code. No functional changes. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
We trigger CPU errata work around check on the boot CPU from smp_prepare_boot_cpu() to make sure that we run the checks only after the CPU feature infrastructure is initialised. While this is correct, we can also do this from init_cpu_features() which initilises the infrastructure, and is called only on the Boot CPU. This helps to consolidate the CPU capability handling to cpufeature.c. No functional changes. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Dave Martin authored
We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d ("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"), there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single capability. Clean up the declaration of the call back to make it clear. 1) Renamed to cpu_enable(), to imply taking necessary actions on the called CPU for the entry. 2) Pass const pointer to the capability, to allow the call back to check the entry. (e.,g to check if any action is needed on the CPU) 3) We don't care about the result of the call back, turning this to a void. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Acked-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> [suzuki: convert more users, rename call back and drop results] Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Dave Martin authored
Use of SVE by EL2 and below requires explicit support in the firmware. There is no means to hide the presence of SVE from EL2, so a kernel configured with CONFIG_ARM64_SVE=y will typically not work correctly on SVE capable hardware unless the firmware does include the appropriate support. This is not expected to pose a problem in the wild, since platform integrators are responsible for ensuring that they ship up-to-date firmware to support their hardware. However, developers may hit the issue when using mismatched compoments. In order to draw attention to the issue and how to solve it, this patch adds some Kconfig text giving a brief explanation and details of compatible firmware versions. Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
- 20 Mar, 2018 2 commits
-
-
Dave Martin authored
Currently a SIGFPE delivered in response to a floating-point exception trap may have si_code set to 0 on arm64. As reported by Eric, this is a bad idea since this is the value of SI_USER -- yet this signal is definitely not the result of kill(2), tgkill(2) etc. and si_uid and si_pid make limited sense whereas we do want to yield a value for si_addr (which doesn't exist for SI_USER). It's not entirely clear whether the architecure permits a "spurious" fp exception trap where none of the exception flag bits in ESR_ELx is set. (IMHO the architectural intent is to forbid this.) However, it does permit those bits to contain garbage if the TFV bit in ESR_ELx is 0. That case isn't currently handled at all and may result in si_code == 0 or si_code containing a FPE_FLT* constant corresponding to an exception that did not in fact happen. There is nothing sensible we can return for si_code in such cases, but SI_USER is certainly not appropriate and will lead to violation of legitimate userspace assumptions. This patch allocates a new si_code value FPE_UNKNOWN that at least does not conflict with any existing SI_* or FPE_* code, and yields this in si_code for undiagnosable cases. This is probably the best simplicity/incorrectness tradeoff achieveable without relying on implementation-dependent features or adding a lot of code. In any case, there appears to be no perfect solution possible that would justify a lot of effort here. Yielding FPE_UNKNOWN when some well-defined fp exception caused the trap is a violation of POSIX, but this is forced by the architecture. We have no realistic prospect of yielding the correct code in such cases. At present I am not aware of any ARMv8 implementation that supports trapped floating-point exceptions in any case. The new code may be applicable to other architectures for similar reasons. No attempt is made to provide ESR_ELx to userspace in the signal frame, since architectural limitations mean that it is unlikely to provide much diagnostic value, doesn't benefit existing software and would create ABI with no proven purpose. The existing mechanism for passing it also has problems of its own which may result in the wrong value being passed to userspace due to interaction with mm faults. The implied rework does not appear justified. Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Reported-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Will Deacon authored
Merge branch 'siginfo-next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace into aarch64/for-next/core Pull in pending siginfo changes from Eric Biederman as we depend on the definition of FPE_FLTUNK for cleaning up our floating-point exception signal delivery (which is currently broken and using FPE_FIXME).
-
- 19 Mar, 2018 3 commits
-
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Expose the new features introduced by Arm v8.4 extensions to Arm v8-A profile. These include : 1) Data indpendent timing of instructions. (DIT, exposed as HWCAP_DIT) 2) Unaligned atomic instructions and Single-copy atomicity of loads and stores. (AT, expose as HWCAP_USCAT) 3) LDAPR and STLR instructions with immediate offsets (extension to LRCPC, exposed as HWCAP_ILRCPC) 4) Flag manipulation instructions (TS, exposed as HWCAP_FLAGM). Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Suzuki K Poulose authored
Remove the invisible RES0 field entries from the table, listing fields in CPU ID feature registers, as : 1) We are only interested in the user visible fields. 2) The field description may not be up-to-date, as the field could be assigned a new meaning. 3) We already explain the rules of the fields which are not visible. Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-
Ard Biesheuvel authored
Now that we started keeping modules within 4 GB of the core kernel in all cases, we no longer need to special case the adr_l/ldr_l/str_l macros for modules to deal with them being loaded farther away. Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
-