On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:00:15PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:33:52PM +0000, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > +void mte_suspend_enter(void)
> > +{
> > + if (!system_supports_mte())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The barriers are required to guarantee that the indirect writes
> > + * to TFSR_EL1 are synchronized before we report the state.
> > + */
> > + dsb(nsh);
> > + isb();
> > +
> > + /* Report SYS_TFSR_EL1 before suspend entry */
> > + mte_check_tfsr_el1();
> > +}
> > +
> > void mte_suspend_exit(void)
> > {
> > if (!system_supports_mte())
> > return;
> >
> > update_gcr_el1_excl(gcr_kernel_excl);
> > +
> > + /* Clear SYS_TFSR_EL1 after suspend exit */
> > + write_sysreg_s(0, SYS_TFSR_EL1);
>
> AFAICS it is not needed, it is done already in __cpu_setup() (that is
> called by cpu_resume on return from cpu_suspend() from firmware).
>
> However, I have a question. We are relying on context switch to set
> sctlr_el1_tfc0 right ? If that's the case, till the thread resuming from
> low power switches context we are running with SCTLR_EL1_TCF0 not
> reflecting the actual value.
I think you have a point here, though not for SCTLR_EL1 as it is already
restored. GCR_EL1 is only updated after some C code has run and may mess
up stack tagging when/if we ever support it. Anyway, something to worry
about later, I think even the boot path gets this wrong.
--
Catalin
