Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-07 Thread Christopher Covington 
On 02/01/2017 01:38 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:34:01PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:59:48PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
 On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:49:34PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Maybe
>> just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
>> runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
>> the erratum (which should never fire)?
>
> You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
> and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
> a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
> use the hw one.

 True, in the case that all PAN options are disabled we still want this
 to work. How about:

   select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN
>>>
>>> As I replied to myself, the above would work for me as well, so let's go
>>> for this.
>>>
 In fact, what's the reason for supporting SW_PAN and ARM64_PAN as a
 config combination? Why not just have "PAN" that enables them both and
 uses the hardware feature if it's there?
>>>
>>> Because SW PAN has a non-trivial performance hit. You would enable SW
>>> PAN only if you are paranoid about security. HW PAN, OTOH, is very cheap
>>> and I wouldn't want to miss enabling it in a single Image supporting
>>> ARMv8.0 and ARMv8.1 just because SW PAN is slow on ARMv8.0.
>>>
>>> IOW, ARM64_PAN is default y while ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is default n.
>>
>> Ok, in that case, then how about another permutation: we make
>> ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN depend on ARM64_PAN? Then when you select "PAN Support"
>> you get a new menu option underneath it for the emulation? I think that
>> solves the erratum case and the use-case above.
> 
> The problem is that ARM64_PAN is an ARMv8.1 feature and currently
> grouped accordingly in Kconfig. ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is complementary (and
> even not recommended on ARMv8.1). We can do this if we break the ARMv8.x
> feature grouping but just for this erratum, I don't think it's worth.

Thanks all. I've used "select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN" in v6.

Thanks,
Cov

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Catalin Marinas 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:34:01PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:59:48PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:49:34PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > Maybe
> > > > > just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> > > > > runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> > > > > the erratum (which should never fire)?
> > > > 
> > > > You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
> > > > and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
> > > > a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
> > > > use the hw one.
> > > 
> > > True, in the case that all PAN options are disabled we still want this
> > > to work. How about:
> > > 
> > >   select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN
> > 
> > As I replied to myself, the above would work for me as well, so let's go
> > for this.
> > 
> > > In fact, what's the reason for supporting SW_PAN and ARM64_PAN as a
> > > config combination? Why not just have "PAN" that enables them both and
> > > uses the hardware feature if it's there?
> > 
> > Because SW PAN has a non-trivial performance hit. You would enable SW
> > PAN only if you are paranoid about security. HW PAN, OTOH, is very cheap
> > and I wouldn't want to miss enabling it in a single Image supporting
> > ARMv8.0 and ARMv8.1 just because SW PAN is slow on ARMv8.0.
> > 
> > IOW, ARM64_PAN is default y while ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is default n.
> 
> Ok, in that case, then how about another permutation: we make
> ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN depend on ARM64_PAN? Then when you select "PAN Support"
> you get a new menu option underneath it for the emulation? I think that
> solves the erratum case and the use-case above.

The problem is that ARM64_PAN is an ARMv8.1 feature and currently
grouped accordingly in Kconfig. ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is complementary (and
even not recommended on ARMv8.1). We can do this if we break the ARMv8.x
feature grouping but just for this erratum, I don't think it's worth.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Will Deacon 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:22:44PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:59:48PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:49:34PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > Maybe
> > > > just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> > > > runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> > > > the erratum (which should never fire)?
> > > 
> > > You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
> > > and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
> > > a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
> > > use the hw one.
> > 
> > True, in the case that all PAN options are disabled we still want this
> > to work. How about:
> > 
> >   select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN
> 
> As I replied to myself, the above would work for me as well, so let's go
> for this.
> 
> > In fact, what's the reason for supporting SW_PAN and ARM64_PAN as a
> > config combination? Why not just have "PAN" that enables them both and
> > uses the hardware feature if it's there?
> 
> Because SW PAN has a non-trivial performance hit. You would enable SW
> PAN only if you are paranoid about security. HW PAN, OTOH, is very cheap
> and I wouldn't want to miss enabling it in a single Image supporting
> ARMv8.0 and ARMv8.1 just because SW PAN is slow on ARMv8.0.
> 
> IOW, ARM64_PAN is default y while ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is default n.

Ok, in that case, then how about another permutation: we make
ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN depend on ARM64_PAN? Then when you select "PAN Support"
you get a new menu option underneath it for the emulation? I think that
solves the erratum case and the use-case above.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Catalin Marinas 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:59:48PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:49:34PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:33:58PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > > > > On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > > > > Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely 
> > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the 
> > > > > > > workaround in
> > > > > > > that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased 
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on 
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while 
> > > > > > work on
> > > > > > this E1003 patch continues.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The alternative is not enabling SW_PAN (at runtime) if this errata is
> > > > > present, along with a warning stating that hardware-PAN should be
> > > > > enabled in kconfig instead. Not sure what distributions will make of 
> > > > > that
> > > > > though.
> > > > 
> > > > The problem with this patch is that when ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is enabled
> > > > and in the absence of hardware PAN (or ARM64_PAN disabled),
> > > > cpu_do_switch_mm is no longer called for user process switching, so the
> > > > workaround is pretty much useless.
> > > 
> > > Oh, I see what you mean now.
> > > 
> > > > I'm ok with adding the Kconfig dependency below to
> > > > QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1003:
> > > > 
> > > > depends on !ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN || ARM64_PAN
> > > > 
> > > > together with a run-time warning if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is being used.
> > > 
> > > That makes it look like hardware-PAN is the cause of the erratum.
> > 
> > With the right Kconfig comment we could make this clearer.
> 
> It's not just a comment though, the kconfig option for the workaround
> will disappear from menuconfig as long as the dependencies aren't met.
> The dependency is really that SW_PAN depends on !ERRATUM_1003, but that
> doesn't work for the distributions.

I agree.

> > > Maybe
> > > just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> > > runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> > > the erratum (which should never fire)?
> > 
> > You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
> > and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
> > a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
> > use the hw one.
> 
> True, in the case that all PAN options are disabled we still want this
> to work. How about:
> 
>   select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN

As I replied to myself, the above would work for me as well, so let's go
for this.

> In fact, what's the reason for supporting SW_PAN and ARM64_PAN as a
> config combination? Why not just have "PAN" that enables them both and
> uses the hardware feature if it's there?

Because SW PAN has a non-trivial performance hit. You would enable SW
PAN only if you are paranoid about security. HW PAN, OTOH, is very cheap
and I wouldn't want to miss enabling it in a single Image supporting
ARMv8.0 and ARMv8.1 just because SW PAN is slow on ARMv8.0.

IOW, ARM64_PAN is default y while ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is default n.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Will Deacon 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:49:34PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:33:58PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > > > On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > > > Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to 
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the 
> > > > > > workaround in
> > > > > > that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased 
> > > > > and
> > > > > submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on 
> > > > > this
> > > > > patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work 
> > > > > on
> > > > > this E1003 patch continues.
> > > > 
> > > > The alternative is not enabling SW_PAN (at runtime) if this errata is
> > > > present, along with a warning stating that hardware-PAN should be
> > > > enabled in kconfig instead. Not sure what distributions will make of 
> > > > that
> > > > though.
> > > 
> > > The problem with this patch is that when ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is enabled
> > > and in the absence of hardware PAN (or ARM64_PAN disabled),
> > > cpu_do_switch_mm is no longer called for user process switching, so the
> > > workaround is pretty much useless.
> > 
> > Oh, I see what you mean now.
> > 
> > > I'm ok with adding the Kconfig dependency below to
> > > QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1003:
> > > 
> > >   depends on !ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN || ARM64_PAN
> > > 
> > > together with a run-time warning if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is being used.
> > 
> > That makes it look like hardware-PAN is the cause of the erratum.
> 
> With the right Kconfig comment we could make this clearer.

It's not just a comment though, the kconfig option for the workaround
will disappear from menuconfig as long as the dependencies aren't met.
The dependency is really that SW_PAN depends on !ERRATUM_1003, but that
doesn't work for the distributions.

> > Maybe
> > just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> > runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> > the erratum (which should never fire)?
> 
> You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
> and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
> a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
> use the hw one.

True, in the case that all PAN options are disabled we still want this
to work. How about:

  select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN

?

In fact, what's the reason for supporting SW_PAN and ARM64_PAN as a
config combination? Why not just have "PAN" that enables them both and
uses the hardware feature if it's there?

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Catalin Marinas 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:49:34PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:33:58PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > > > On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > > > Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to 
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the 
> > > > > > workaround in
> > > > > > that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased 
> > > > > and
> > > > > submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on 
> > > > > this
> > > > > patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work 
> > > > > on
> > > > > this E1003 patch continues.
> > > > 
> > > > The alternative is not enabling SW_PAN (at runtime) if this errata is
> > > > present, along with a warning stating that hardware-PAN should be
> > > > enabled in kconfig instead. Not sure what distributions will make of 
> > > > that
> > > > though.
> > > 
> > > The problem with this patch is that when ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is enabled
> > > and in the absence of hardware PAN (or ARM64_PAN disabled),
> > > cpu_do_switch_mm is no longer called for user process switching, so the
> > > workaround is pretty much useless.
> > 
> > Oh, I see what you mean now.
> > 
> > > I'm ok with adding the Kconfig dependency below to
> > > QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1003:
> > > 
> > >   depends on !ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN || ARM64_PAN
> > > 
> > > together with a run-time warning if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is being used.
> > 
> > That makes it look like hardware-PAN is the cause of the erratum.
> 
> With the right Kconfig comment we could make this clearer.
> 
> > Maybe
> > just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> > runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> > the erratum (which should never fire)?
> 
> You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
> and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
> a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
> use the hw one.

Alternatively, your select idea could be refined to:

select ARM64_PAN if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN

but we still need a proper comment as people would wonder what this is
for.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Catalin Marinas 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:41:05PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:33:58PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > > On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > > Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to be
> > > > > enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the workaround 
> > > > > in
> > > > > that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
> > > > 
> > > > Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased and
> > > > submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on this
> > > > patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work on
> > > > this E1003 patch continues.
> > > 
> > > The alternative is not enabling SW_PAN (at runtime) if this errata is
> > > present, along with a warning stating that hardware-PAN should be
> > > enabled in kconfig instead. Not sure what distributions will make of that
> > > though.
> > 
> > The problem with this patch is that when ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is enabled
> > and in the absence of hardware PAN (or ARM64_PAN disabled),
> > cpu_do_switch_mm is no longer called for user process switching, so the
> > workaround is pretty much useless.
> 
> Oh, I see what you mean now.
> 
> > I'm ok with adding the Kconfig dependency below to
> > QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1003:
> > 
> > depends on !ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN || ARM64_PAN
> > 
> > together with a run-time warning if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is being used.
> 
> That makes it look like hardware-PAN is the cause of the erratum.

With the right Kconfig comment we could make this clearer.

> Maybe
> just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
> runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
> the erratum (which should never fire)?

You still need this workaround even if you don't want any PAN (both sw
and hw PAN disabled). I wouldn't want to select ARM64_PAN since it's not
a dependency. It's more like if you do need a PAN, make sure you only
use the hw one.

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Will Deacon 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 05:36:09PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:33:58PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to be
> > > > enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the workaround in
> > > > that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
> > > 
> > > Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased and
> > > submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on this
> > > patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work on
> > > this E1003 patch continues.
> > 
> > The alternative is not enabling SW_PAN (at runtime) if this errata is
> > present, along with a warning stating that hardware-PAN should be
> > enabled in kconfig instead. Not sure what distributions will make of that
> > though.
> 
> The problem with this patch is that when ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is enabled
> and in the absence of hardware PAN (or ARM64_PAN disabled),
> cpu_do_switch_mm is no longer called for user process switching, so the
> workaround is pretty much useless.

Oh, I see what you mean now.

> I'm ok with adding the Kconfig dependency below to
> QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1003:
> 
>   depends on !ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN || ARM64_PAN
> 
> together with a run-time warning if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is being used.

That makes it look like hardware-PAN is the cause of the erratum. Maybe
just select ARM64_PAN if the erratum workaround is selected, then
runtime warning if we find that the h/w doesn't have PAN but does have
the erratum (which should never fire)?

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Catalin Marinas 
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:33:58PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:29:22AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to be
> > > enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the workaround in
> > > that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
> > 
> > Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased and
> > submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on this
> > patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work on
> > this E1003 patch continues.
> 
> The alternative is not enabling SW_PAN (at runtime) if this errata is
> present, along with a warning stating that hardware-PAN should be
> enabled in kconfig instead. Not sure what distributions will make of that
> though.

The problem with this patch is that when ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is enabled
and in the absence of hardware PAN (or ARM64_PAN disabled),
cpu_do_switch_mm is no longer called for user process switching, so the
workaround is pretty much useless.

I'm ok with adding the Kconfig dependency below to
QCOM_FALKOR_ERRATUM_1003:

depends on !ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN || ARM64_PAN

together with a run-time warning if ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN is being used.

I'm not keen on adding the workaround to the uaccess macros. They are
complex enough already and people who do want SW PAN (and single Image)
would end up with 6-8 extra unnecessary nops on each side of a uaccess
(and nops are not entirely free).

-- 
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-02-01 Thread Christopher Covington 
On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 31/01/17 17:48, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> On 01/31/2017 07:37 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
 The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
 using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
 is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
 address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
 circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
 when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
 operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
 TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
 descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
 ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
 performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.

 Consider the following pseudo code.

   write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1

 Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
 entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.

   write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
   ISB
   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
   ISB
   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
   ISB

 When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
 value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
 ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
 tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.
>>>
>>> Based on my understanding that entries allocated to the reserved ASID
>>> will not be used for subsequent page table walks (and so we don't have
>>> asynchronous behaviour to contend with), this sounds fine to me.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time to clarify the details on that.
>>>
 Based on work by Shanker Donthineni 

 Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington 
 ---
  Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt |  1 +
  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 11 +++
  arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 23 +++
  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h   |  3 ++-
  arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h   |  8 +++-
  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c |  7 +++
  arch/arm64/mm/context.c| 11 +++
  arch/arm64/mm/proc.S   |  1 +
  8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Don't we need to use pre_ttbr0_update_workaround in 
>>> for CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN? We implicitly switch to the reserved ASID
>>> for the empty table in __uaccess_ttbr0_disable.
>>>
>>> That also means we have to invalidate the reserved ASID so as to not
>>> accidentally hit while uaccess is disabled.
>>
>> The CPU in question (Falkor v1) has hardware PAN support. Do we need
>> to worry about including the workaround in the SW PAN code in that case?
> 
> Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to be
> enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the workaround in
> that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.

Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased and
submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on this
patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work on
this E1003 patch continues.

1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9547923/

Thanks,
Christopher

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-01-31 Thread Marc Zyngier 
On 31/01/17 17:48, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 01/31/2017 07:37 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>>> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
>>> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
>>> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
>>> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
>>> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
>>> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
>>> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
>>> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
>>> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
>>> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
>>> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.
>>>
>>> Consider the following pseudo code.
>>>
>>>   write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1
>>>
>>> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
>>> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.
>>>
>>>   write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>>   ISB
>>>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
>>>   ISB
>>>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>>   ISB
>>>
>>> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
>>> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
>>> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
>>> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.
>>
>> Based on my understanding that entries allocated to the reserved ASID
>> will not be used for subsequent page table walks (and so we don't have
>> asynchronous behaviour to contend with), this sounds fine to me.
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to clarify the details on that.
>>
>>> Based on work by Shanker Donthineni 
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington 
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt |  1 +
>>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 11 +++
>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 23 +++
>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h   |  3 ++-
>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h   |  8 +++-
>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c |  7 +++
>>>  arch/arm64/mm/context.c| 11 +++
>>>  arch/arm64/mm/proc.S   |  1 +
>>>  8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Don't we need to use pre_ttbr0_update_workaround in 
>> for CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN? We implicitly switch to the reserved ASID
>> for the empty table in __uaccess_ttbr0_disable.
>>
>> That also means we have to invalidate the reserved ASID so as to not
>> accidentally hit while uaccess is disabled.
> 
> The CPU in question (Falkor v1) has hardware PAN support. Do we need
> to worry about including the workaround in the SW PAN code in that case?

Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to be
enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the workaround in
that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.

Thanks,

M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-01-31 Thread Christopher Covington 
On 01/31/2017 07:37 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
>> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
>> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
>> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
>> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
>> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
>> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
>> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
>> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
>> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
>> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.
>>
>> Consider the following pseudo code.
>>
>>   write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1
>>
>> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
>> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.
>>
>>   write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>   ISB
>>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
>>   ISB
>>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>   ISB
>>
>> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
>> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
>> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
>> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.
> 
> Based on my understanding that entries allocated to the reserved ASID
> will not be used for subsequent page table walks (and so we don't have
> asynchronous behaviour to contend with), this sounds fine to me.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to clarify the details on that.
> 
>> Based on work by Shanker Donthineni 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington 
>> ---
>>  Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt |  1 +
>>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 11 +++
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 23 +++
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h   |  3 ++-
>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h   |  8 +++-
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c |  7 +++
>>  arch/arm64/mm/context.c| 11 +++
>>  arch/arm64/mm/proc.S   |  1 +
>>  8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Don't we need to use pre_ttbr0_update_workaround in 
> for CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN? We implicitly switch to the reserved ASID
> for the empty table in __uaccess_ttbr0_disable.
> 
> That also means we have to invalidate the reserved ASID so as to not
> accidentally hit while uaccess is disabled.

The CPU in question (Falkor v1) has hardware PAN support. Do we need
to worry about including the workaround in the SW PAN code in that case?

Thanks,
Cov

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-01-31 Thread Mark Rutland 
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.
> 
> Consider the following pseudo code.
> 
>   write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1
> 
> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.
> 
>   write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>   ISB
>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
>   ISB
>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>   ISB
> 
> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.

Based on my understanding that entries allocated to the reserved ASID
will not be used for subsequent page table walks (and so we don't have
asynchronous behaviour to contend with), this sounds fine to me.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the details on that.

> Based on work by Shanker Donthineni 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington 
> ---
>  Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt |  1 +
>  arch/arm64/Kconfig | 11 +++
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 23 +++
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h   |  3 ++-
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h   |  8 +++-
>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c |  7 +++
>  arch/arm64/mm/context.c| 11 +++
>  arch/arm64/mm/proc.S   |  1 +
>  8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Don't we need to use pre_ttbr0_update_workaround in 
for CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN? We implicitly switch to the reserved ASID
for the empty table in __uaccess_ttbr0_disable.

That also means we have to invalidate the reserved ASID so as to not
accidentally hit while uaccess is disabled.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-01-30 Thread Christopher Covington 
Hi Mark,

On 01/30/2017 05:56 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 04:52:23PM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> On 01/27/2017 09:38 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> 
 Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
 entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.

   write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
   ISB
   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
   ISB
   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
   ISB

 When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
 value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
 ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
 tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.
>>>
>>> I agree that there should be no explicit accesses to the VAs for these
>>> entries. So tasks should not see erroneous VAs, and we shouldn't see
>>> synchronous TLB conflict aborts.
>>>
>>> Regardless, can this allow conflicting TLB entries to be allocated to
>>> the reserved ASID? e.g. if one task has a 4K mapping at a given VA, and
>>> another has a 2M mapping which covers that VA, can both be allocated
>>> into the TLBs under the reserved ASID?
>>>
>>> Can that have any effect on asynchronous TLB lookups or page table
>>> walks, e.g. for speculated accesses?
>>
>> A speculative access that inserts an entry into the TLB could
>> possibly find the conflict but will not signal it. Does that answer
>> your question?
> 
> Yes!
> 
> The other case I was worried about was intermediate caching. I take it
> the values in TLBs are not used as part of subsequent page table walks?
> 
> If so, the above sounds fine to me.
> 
> Otherwise, we'll need additional TLB maintenance.

Errant TLB entries will not be used for any legitimate subsequent page
table walks.

I have some minor changes which I'll send as v5 based on
kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/core.

Thanks,
Cov

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-01-27 Thread Christopher Covington 
Hi Mark,

On 01/27/2017 09:38 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
>> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
>> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
>> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
>> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
>> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
>> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
>> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
>> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
>> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
>> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.
>>
>> Consider the following pseudo code.
>>
>>   write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1
>>
>> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
>> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.
>>
>>   write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>   ISB
>>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
>>   ISB
>>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>   ISB
>>
>> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
>> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
>> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
>> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.
> 
> I agree that there should be no explicit accesses to the VAs for these
> entries. So tasks should not see erroneous VAs, and we shouldn't see
> synchronous TLB conflict aborts.
> 
> Regardless, can this allow conflicting TLB entries to be allocated to
> the reserved ASID? e.g. if one task has a 4K mapping at a given VA, and
> another has a 2M mapping which covers that VA, can both be allocated
> into the TLBs under the reserved ASID?
> 
> Can that have any effect on asynchronous TLB lookups or page table
> walks, e.g. for speculated accesses?

A speculative access that inserts an entry into the TLB could
possibly find the conflict but will not signal it. Does that answer
your question?

Thanks,
Cov

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-01-27 Thread Timur Tabi 

On 01/25/2017 09:52 AM, Christopher Covington wrote:

+   .desc = "Qualcomm Falkor erratum 1003",


FYI, this needs to say, "Qualcomm Technologies Falkor ...".  Same thing with 
the 1009 patch.


--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc.  Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

2017-01-27 Thread Mark Rutland 
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.
>
> Consider the following pseudo code.
>
>   write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1
>
> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.
>
>   write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>   ISB
>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
>   ISB
>   write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>   ISB
>
> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.

I agree that there should be no explicit accesses to the VAs for these
entries. So tasks should not see erroneous VAs, and we shouldn't see
synchronous TLB conflict aborts.

Regardless, can this allow conflicting TLB entries to be allocated to
the reserved ASID? e.g. if one task has a 4K mapping at a given VA, and
another has a 2M mapping which covers that VA, can both be allocated
into the TLBs under the reserved ASID?

Can that have any effect on asynchronous TLB lookups or page table
walks, e.g. for speculated accesses?

Thanks,
Mark.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html