Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: Ensure the secondary CPUs have safe ASIDBits size

[Suzuki K. Poulose]

On 23/11/15 17:29, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:09:00PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> > The ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1:ASIDBits determines the size of the mm context
> > id and is used in the early boot to make decisions. The value is
> > picked up from the Boot CPU and cannot be delayed until other CPUs
> > are up. If a secondary CPU has a smaller size than that of the Boot
> > CPU, things will break horribly and the usual SANITY check is not good
> > enough to prevent the system from crashing. Prevent this by failing CPUs with
> > ASID smaller than that of the boot CPU.

...

> > +	pr_crit("CPU%d: will not boot\n", cpu);
>
> This is less informative than the current message (whcih describes the
> missing capability).

The missing capability is printed by the caller (Patch 4/5) and see below
for the new user.


	ID_AA64MMFR0_ASID_SHIFT);
> > +	if (asid_cur < asid_boot) {
> > +		pr_crit("CPU%d: has incompatible ASIDBits: %u vs Boot CPU:%u\n",
> > +				cpu, asid_cur, asid_boot);
> > +		fail_incapable_cpu();
> > +	}
>
> Hmm. Whilst we want to ensure that secondary CPUs don't have a smaller
> ASID size than the boot CPU, can we actually guarantee that a smaller
> value for ID_AA64MMFR0.ASIDBits corresponds to fewer bits? We're
> probably better off assuming 8-bit ASIDs unless ASIDBits == 2 (which is
> what the ASID allocator does).

Right, I already have a reworked version, which does the same and moves it
back to verify_local_cpu_capabilities(). I will send it tomorrow.

Cheers
Suzuki

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/