Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm/arm64/xen: use C inlines for privcmd_call

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:34:03AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:30:41PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SW_DOMAIN_PAN
> > > > +static __always_inline void uaccess_enable(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     unsigned long val = DACR_UACCESS_ENABLE;
> > > > +
> > > > +     asm volatile("mcr p15, 0, %0, c3, c0, 0" : : "r" (val));
> > > > +     isb();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static __always_inline void uaccess_disable(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +     unsigned long val = DACR_UACCESS_ENABLE;
> > 
> > Oops, should be DACR_UACCESS_DISABLE.
> > 
> > > > +
> > > > +     asm volatile("mcr p15, 0, %0, c3, c0, 0" : : "r" (val));
> > > > +     isb();
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Rather than inventing these, why not use uaccess_save_and_enable()..
> > > uaccess_restore() around the Xen call?
> > 
> > Thank you for suggestion: uaccess_enable() and uaccess_disable() are
> > common calls with arm64, so I will need them, but I think I can use
> > set_domain() with DACR_UACCESS_DISABLE /DACR_UACCESS_ENABLE inside
> > these inlines.
> 
> That may be, but be very careful that you only use them in ARMv7-only
> code.  Using them elsewhere is unsafe as the domain register is used
> for other purposes, and merely blatting over it (as your
> uaccess_enable and uaccess_disable functions do) is unsafe.

In fact, I'll turn that into a bit more than a suggestion.  I'll make
it a NAK on adding them to 32-bit ARM.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up