Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 04/04/18 00:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 16/03/18 17:15, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 16/03/2018 16:56, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > > > > > On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > > > > After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and > > > > > > > > > considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I > > > > > > > > > agree > > > > > > > > > with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > patches now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Julien, Andre, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please give a look at the following branches: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > > > staging-4.7-spectre > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > > > staging-4.8-spectre > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > > > staging-4.9-spectre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > to see > > > > > > > the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a > > > > > > > massive > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main > > > > > > > concern is > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > SMC instruction available to the guest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > care in > > > > > > > do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code > > > > > > > non-justified code > > > > > > > movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> > > > > > > > 1.0) > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > crashes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is > > > > > > > custom patch > > > > > > > and only do minimal modification. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > > > staging-4.10-spectre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to > > > > > > > 4.10: > > > > > > > - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove > > > > > > > unneeded > > > > > > > gic.h > > > > > > > inclusions" > > > > > > > - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: > > > > > > > Prefix > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > static any functions not exported" > > > > > > > - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: > > > > > > > Update > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to > > > > > > > 4.10: > > > > > > > - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: > > > > > > > Rework > > > > > > > the logic > > > > > > > to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide > > > > > > the > > > > > > git branches? > > > > > > > > > > That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere > > > > > in > > > > > April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. > > > > > > > > > > So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders > > > > > who > > > > > are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. > > > > > > > > To be clear, for Xen 4.10 it is just a matter of dropping the 3 patches > > > > I > > > > suggested. There are actually no clash with the current code. > > > > > > Gentle ping. Is there anything blocking to get those patches in Xen 4.10? > > > > Done! Thanks for the ping! > > It looks like the commit 6b270fae7ad462687550a875f714bff18d764416 "xen/arm: > Relax ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 discovery" is missing in Xen 4.10. Well spotted! The commit is missing from all my original backports as well. I pushed the cherry-pick to staging-4.10, as well as the other backports in my xen-unstable tree (staging-4.9-spectre stag
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
Alright, these are now at * https://xenproject.org/downloads/xen-archives/xen-project-47-series/xen-475.html * https://xenproject.org/downloads/xen-archives/xen-project-49-series/xen-492.html Blog post and mails will follow shortly (as Jan is OO today) Regards Lars On 04/04/2018, 11:37, "Lars Kurth" wrote: Folks, I have not created the webpages for these. The script I am using to generate these depends on a script in xsa.git, which fails at the moment due to a missing new package dependency that I can't resolve as I don't have root access Lars On 04/04/2018, 10:59, "Julien Grall" wrote: Hi Stefano, On 04/04/18 00:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 16/03/18 17:15, Julien Grall wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16/03/2018 16:56, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Stefano, >> >> On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. >>> >>> Julien, Andre, >>> >>> Please give a look at the following branches: >>> >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.7-spectre >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.8-spectre >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.9-spectre >> >> For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want >> to see >> the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive >> changes >> of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is >> making >> SMC instruction available to the guest. >> >> It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we >> care in >> do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). >> >> This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code >> non-justified code >> movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. >> >> I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) >> for >> those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now >> crashes. >> >> Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is >> custom patch >> and only do minimal modification. >> >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.10-spectre >> >> The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: >> - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded >> gic.h >> inclusions" >> - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix >> with >> static any functions not exported" >> - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update >> the >> return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" >> >> The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: >> - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework >> the logic >> to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" >> >> You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the >> ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. > > I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the > git branches? That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere in April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders who are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. >>> >>> To be clear, for Xen 4.10 it is just a matter of dropping the 3 patches I >>> suggested. There are actually no clash with the current code.
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
Folks, I have not created the webpages for these. The script I am using to generate these depends on a script in xsa.git, which fails at the moment due to a missing new package dependency that I can't resolve as I don't have root access Lars On 04/04/2018, 10:59, "Julien Grall" wrote: Hi Stefano, On 04/04/18 00:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 16/03/18 17:15, Julien Grall wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 16/03/2018 16:56, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Stefano, >> >> On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. >>> >>> Julien, Andre, >>> >>> Please give a look at the following branches: >>> >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.7-spectre >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.8-spectre >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.9-spectre >> >> For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want >> to see >> the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive >> changes >> of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is >> making >> SMC instruction available to the guest. >> >> It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we >> care in >> do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). >> >> This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code >> non-justified code >> movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. >> >> I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) >> for >> those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now >> crashes. >> >> Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is >> custom patch >> and only do minimal modification. >> >>> git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git >>> staging-4.10-spectre >> >> The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: >> - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded >> gic.h >> inclusions" >> - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix >> with >> static any functions not exported" >> - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update >> the >> return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" >> >> The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: >> - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework >> the logic >> to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" >> >> You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the >> ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. > > I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the > git branches? That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere in April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders who are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. >>> >>> To be clear, for Xen 4.10 it is just a matter of dropping the 3 patches I >>> suggested. There are actually no clash with the current code. >> >> Gentle ping. Is there anything blocking to get those patches in Xen 4.10? > > Done! Thanks for the ping! It looks like the commit 6b270fae7ad462687550a875f714bff18d764416 "xen/arm: Relax ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 discovery" is missing in Xen 4.10. Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
Hi Stefano, On 04/04/18 00:55, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote: Hi, On 16/03/18 17:15, Julien Grall wrote: On 16/03/2018 16:56, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. Julien, Andre, Please give a look at the following branches: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.7-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.8-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.9-spectre For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want to see the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive changes of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is making SMC instruction available to the guest. It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we care in do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code non-justified code movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) for those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now crashes. Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is custom patch and only do minimal modification. git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.10-spectre The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded gic.h inclusions" - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix with static any functions not exported" - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update the return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework the logic to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the git branches? That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere in April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders who are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. To be clear, for Xen 4.10 it is just a matter of dropping the 3 patches I suggested. There are actually no clash with the current code. Gentle ping. Is there anything blocking to get those patches in Xen 4.10? Done! Thanks for the ping! It looks like the commit 6b270fae7ad462687550a875f714bff18d764416 "xen/arm: Relax ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 discovery" is missing in Xen 4.10. Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi, > > On 16/03/18 17:15, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > > On 16/03/2018 16:56, Julien Grall wrote: > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: > > > > > Hi Stefano, > > > > > > > > > > On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > > After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and > > > > > > > considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I > > > > > > > agree > > > > > > > with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the > > > > > > > patches now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Julien, Andre, > > > > > > > > > > > > Please give a look at the following branches: > > > > > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > staging-4.7-spectre > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > staging-4.8-spectre > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > staging-4.9-spectre > > > > > > > > > > For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want > > > > > to see > > > > > the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive > > > > > changes > > > > > of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is > > > > > making > > > > > SMC instruction available to the guest. > > > > > > > > > > It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we > > > > > care in > > > > > do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). > > > > > > > > > > This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code > > > > > non-justified code > > > > > movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. > > > > > > > > > > I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) > > > > > for > > > > > those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now > > > > > crashes. > > > > > > > > > > Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is > > > > > custom patch > > > > > and only do minimal modification. > > > > > > > > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > > > > > staging-4.10-spectre > > > > > > > > > > The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: > > > > > - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded > > > > > gic.h > > > > > inclusions" > > > > > - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix > > > > > with > > > > > static any functions not exported" > > > > > - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update > > > > > the > > > > > return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" > > > > > > > > > > The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: > > > > > - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework > > > > > the logic > > > > > to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" > > > > > > > > > > You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the > > > > > ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. > > > > > > > > I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the > > > > git branches? > > > > > > That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere in > > > April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. > > > > > > So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders who > > > are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. > > > > To be clear, for Xen 4.10 it is just a matter of dropping the 3 patches I > > suggested. There are actually no clash with the current code. > > Gentle ping. Is there anything blocking to get those patches in Xen 4.10? Done! Thanks for the ping!___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
Hi, On 16/03/18 17:15, Julien Grall wrote: On 16/03/2018 16:56, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. Julien, Andre, Please give a look at the following branches: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.7-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.8-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.9-spectre For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want to see the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive changes of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is making SMC instruction available to the guest. It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we care in do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code non-justified code movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) for those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now crashes. Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is custom patch and only do minimal modification. git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.10-spectre The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded gic.h inclusions" - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix with static any functions not exported" - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update the return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework the logic to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the git branches? That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere in April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders who are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. To be clear, for Xen 4.10 it is just a matter of dropping the 3 patches I suggested. There are actually no clash with the current code. Gentle ping. Is there anything blocking to get those patches in Xen 4.10? Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On 16/03/2018 16:56, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. Julien, Andre, Please give a look at the following branches: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.7-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.8-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.9-spectre For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want to see the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive changes of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is making SMC instruction available to the guest. It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we care in do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code non-justified code movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) for those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now crashes. Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is custom patch and only do minimal modification. git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.10-spectre The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded gic.h inclusions" - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix with static any functions not exported" - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update the return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework the logic to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the git branches? That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere in April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders who are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. To be clear, for Xen 4.10 it is just a matter of dropping the 3 patches I suggested. There are actually no clash with the current code. Although, this would imply a bump to the PSCI version. A new patch allowing the user to set the PSCI version would be necessary if we consider this important. Where we would need help is for Xen 4.9, 4.8 and 4.7. For those releases what we need is: 1) Add PSCI Features for the host (Xen 4.10 patches should work) 2) Add SMCCC detection for the host (Xen 4.10 patches should work) 3) Bump virtual PSCI to 1.0 4) Handle only function ID required for the workaround (SMCCC_FEATURES and WORKAROUND_ARCH_1). All the other will return 0x. 5) Plug to the cpu errata framework The only patches that would need to be written from scratch is for 4). Most of the others could be taken as it is from Xen 4.10 or slightly adapt (when code changes). Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
Hi Stefano, On 16/03/2018 16:33, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: Hi Stefano, On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. Julien, Andre, Please give a look at the following branches: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.7-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.8-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.9-spectre For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want to see the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive changes of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is making SMC instruction available to the guest. It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we care in do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code non-justified code movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) for those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now crashes. Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is custom patch and only do minimal modification. git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.10-spectre The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded gic.h inclusions" - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix with static any functions not exported" - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update the return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework the logic to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the git branches? That will have to wait when I have spare cycle. Most likely somewhere in April when I am done from the Xen 4.11 patches and back from holidays. So It is probably the right time to put into contribution stakeholders who are using those Xen 4.* stable releases. Cheers, [1] https://developer.arm.com/support/security-update/downloads -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and > > > considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree > > > with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the > > > arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the > > > patches now. > > > > Julien, Andre, > > > > Please give a look at the following branches: > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > staging-4.7-spectre > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > staging-4.8-spectre > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > staging-4.9-spectre > > For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want to see > the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive changes > of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is making > SMC instruction available to the guest. > > It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we care in > do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). > > This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code non-justified code > movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. > > I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) for > those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now > crashes. > > Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is custom patch > and only do minimal modification. > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git > > staging-4.10-spectre > > The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: > - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded gic.h > inclusions" > - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix with > static any functions not exported" > - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update the > return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" > > The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: > - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework the logic > to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" > > You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the > ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. I understand your concerns, in that case could you please provide the git branches? If I had to do the backports myself, I'll stick with my approach because I am more confident of its correctness, but I would be happy to take a look at your version of the backports. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
Hi Stefano, On 15/03/18 23:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. Julien, Andre, Please give a look at the following branches: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.7-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.8-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.9-spectre For all of the tree above, as I said yesterday, I clearly don't want to see the smccc framework backport for Xen 4.9 and older. This is a massive changes of the interface that is not necessary for spectre. My main concern is making SMC instruction available to the guest. It would be just sufficient to emulate the few SMCCC function ID we care in do_trap_psci (function can be renamed). This is also clearly wrong to backport coding style or code non-justified code movement (sysreg) just to please the cherry-pick. I am also worry to bump the version of the emulated PSCI (0.2 -> 1.0) for those releases. Some guests may rely on a specific version and may now crashes. Overall, the right way to support spectre in earlier releases is custom patch and only do minimal modification. git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.10-spectre The patches below should not be part of spectre nor backport to 4.10: - 82e29c87dc7f4f2a7e2f111c3646479da21a910a "ARM: remove unneeded gic.h inclusions" - 79563717c9dd5383abcf0ba94d813de9b42e3793 "xen/arm: psci: Prefix with static any functions not exported" - 6d0e9b21b1f7213c1994cc2d636448ee2d5372c2 "xen/arm: vpsci: Update the return type for MIGRATE_INFO_TYPE" The patches below should not be part of spectre but candidate to 4.10: - c2d70f77cc7987be164cd87b76459782497fc540 "xen/arm: vpsci: Rework the logic to start AArch32 vCPU in Thumb mode" You will also want to backport [1] which address a relaxation of the ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1. Cheers, [1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-03/msg01161.html Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and > considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree > with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the > arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the > patches now. Julien, Andre, Please give a look at the following branches: git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.7-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.8-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.9-spectre git://xenbits.xen.org/people/sstabellini/xen-unstable.git staging-4.10-spectre the backports were all but trivial, but they all build and run correctly. Cheers, Stefano ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018, Julien Grall wrote: > On 12/03/18 10:24, Julien Grall wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 11/03/18 20:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > > On 06.03.18 at 20:24, wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > these stable releases should go out before the end of the month. > > > > > > Please point out backport candidates you find missing from the > > > > > > respective staging branches, but which you consider relevant. > > > > > > Please note that 4.7.5 is expected to be the last xenproject.org > > > > > > managed release from its branch. > > > > > > > > > > I am waiting for master to pass Julien's PSCI 1.1 series, then I > > > > > intend > > > > > to backport it to all stable trees (commits from > > > > > f30b93b42b7137654a69676a61620f763c4ad3b3 to > > > > > cd8b749282475caef095ea2f339a01d1ff9714ae). > > > > > > > > > > Backports to older trees might be difficult. > > > > > > > > > > Given your stable release plan, do you suggest I should start the > > > > > backports now, even if master has not passed yet, or wait? > > > > > > > > There have been a lot of minor issues lately keeping pushes from > > > > happening on master, so if the commits above have not been > > > > pushed just because of such a glitch, I'd be fine with them being > > > > backported right away. If, however, there's any doubt, then I'd > > > > prefer if you waited. But in the end on the ARM side you know > > > > better than me what's best. > > > Master hasn't passed yet, so no backports of the ARM64 Spectre > > > mitigation for the moment. > > > > I really don't like the idea to ship 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 with broken arm64 > > spectre patches. This is indeed the case today as the previous series was > > based on early discussion. > > > > But unstable is blocked on amd64 patches. None of the arm64 spectre > > ^ "amd64 tests". > > > series touch common code, so I am not sure what prevents us to backport > > them. After looking at the test results, which are good for arm, and considering that master hasn't passed yet after 2 more days, I agree with Julien: I think we should not release 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 without the arm64 spectre patches. At this point, I'll proceed to backport the patches now. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On 12/03/18 10:24, Julien Grall wrote: Hi, On 11/03/18 20:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: On 06.03.18 at 20:24, wrote: On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: these stable releases should go out before the end of the month. Please point out backport candidates you find missing from the respective staging branches, but which you consider relevant. Please note that 4.7.5 is expected to be the last xenproject.org managed release from its branch. I am waiting for master to pass Julien's PSCI 1.1 series, then I intend to backport it to all stable trees (commits from f30b93b42b7137654a69676a61620f763c4ad3b3 to cd8b749282475caef095ea2f339a01d1ff9714ae). Backports to older trees might be difficult. Given your stable release plan, do you suggest I should start the backports now, even if master has not passed yet, or wait? There have been a lot of minor issues lately keeping pushes from happening on master, so if the commits above have not been pushed just because of such a glitch, I'd be fine with them being backported right away. If, however, there's any doubt, then I'd prefer if you waited. But in the end on the ARM side you know better than me what's best. Master hasn't passed yet, so no backports of the ARM64 Spectre mitigation for the moment. I really don't like the idea to ship 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 with broken arm64 spectre patches. This is indeed the case today as the previous series was based on early discussion. But unstable is blocked on amd64 patches. None of the arm64 spectre ^ "amd64 tests". series touch common code, so I am not sure what prevents us to backport them. In the meantime, I tagged the QEMU trees. > Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
Hi, On 11/03/18 20:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote: On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: On 06.03.18 at 20:24, wrote: On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: these stable releases should go out before the end of the month. Please point out backport candidates you find missing from the respective staging branches, but which you consider relevant. Please note that 4.7.5 is expected to be the last xenproject.org managed release from its branch. I am waiting for master to pass Julien's PSCI 1.1 series, then I intend to backport it to all stable trees (commits from f30b93b42b7137654a69676a61620f763c4ad3b3 to cd8b749282475caef095ea2f339a01d1ff9714ae). Backports to older trees might be difficult. Given your stable release plan, do you suggest I should start the backports now, even if master has not passed yet, or wait? There have been a lot of minor issues lately keeping pushes from happening on master, so if the commits above have not been pushed just because of such a glitch, I'd be fine with them being backported right away. If, however, there's any doubt, then I'd prefer if you waited. But in the end on the ARM side you know better than me what's best. Master hasn't passed yet, so no backports of the ARM64 Spectre mitigation for the moment. I really don't like the idea to ship 4.9.2 and 4.7.5 with broken arm64 spectre patches. This is indeed the case today as the previous series was based on early discussion. But unstable is blocked on amd64 patches. None of the arm64 spectre series touch common code, so I am not sure what prevents us to backport them. In the meantime, I tagged the QEMU trees. > Cheers, -- Julien Grall ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 06.03.18 at 20:24, wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> these stable releases should go out before the end of the month. > >> Please point out backport candidates you find missing from the > >> respective staging branches, but which you consider relevant. > >> Please note that 4.7.5 is expected to be the last xenproject.org > >> managed release from its branch. > > > > I am waiting for master to pass Julien's PSCI 1.1 series, then I intend > > to backport it to all stable trees (commits from > > f30b93b42b7137654a69676a61620f763c4ad3b3 to > > cd8b749282475caef095ea2f339a01d1ff9714ae). > > > > Backports to older trees might be difficult. > > > > Given your stable release plan, do you suggest I should start the > > backports now, even if master has not passed yet, or wait? > > There have been a lot of minor issues lately keeping pushes from > happening on master, so if the commits above have not been > pushed just because of such a glitch, I'd be fine with them being > backported right away. If, however, there's any doubt, then I'd > prefer if you waited. But in the end on the ARM side you know > better than me what's best. Master hasn't passed yet, so no backports of the ARM64 Spectre mitigation for the moment. In the meantime, I tagged the QEMU trees. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 08:32:48AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > All, > > these stable releases should go out before the end of the month. > Please point out backport candidates you find missing from the > respective staging branches, but which you consider relevant. > Please note that 4.7.5 is expected to be the last xenproject.org > managed release from its branch. > Mini-os tree tagging done. Wei. ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
>>> On 06.03.18 at 20:24, wrote: > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: >> these stable releases should go out before the end of the month. >> Please point out backport candidates you find missing from the >> respective staging branches, but which you consider relevant. >> Please note that 4.7.5 is expected to be the last xenproject.org >> managed release from its branch. > > I am waiting for master to pass Julien's PSCI 1.1 series, then I intend > to backport it to all stable trees (commits from > f30b93b42b7137654a69676a61620f763c4ad3b3 to > cd8b749282475caef095ea2f339a01d1ff9714ae). > > Backports to older trees might be difficult. > > Given your stable release plan, do you suggest I should start the > backports now, even if master has not passed yet, or wait? There have been a lot of minor issues lately keeping pushes from happening on master, so if the commits above have not been pushed just because of such a glitch, I'd be fine with them being backported right away. If, however, there's any doubt, then I'd prefer if you waited. But in the end on the ARM side you know better than me what's best. Jan ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote: > All, > > these stable releases should go out before the end of the month. > Please point out backport candidates you find missing from the > respective staging branches, but which you consider relevant. > Please note that 4.7.5 is expected to be the last xenproject.org > managed release from its branch. Hi Jan, I am waiting for master to pass Julien's PSCI 1.1 series, then I intend to backport it to all stable trees (commits from f30b93b42b7137654a69676a61620f763c4ad3b3 to cd8b749282475caef095ea2f339a01d1ff9714ae). Backports to older trees might be difficult. Given your stable release plan, do you suggest I should start the backports now, even if master has not passed yet, or wait? Cheers, Stefano ___ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
