Message ID | 20191216115631.17804-1-steven.price@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | arm64: Workaround for Cortex-A55 erratum 1530923 | expand |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, Steven Price wrote: > Version 5 is a rebasing of version 4 (no changes). > > This series enables a workaround for Cortex-A55 erratum 1530923. The > erratum potentially allows TLB entries to be allocated as a result of a > speculative AT instruction. This may happen in the middle of a guest > world switch while the relevant VMSA configuration is in an inconsistent > state, leading to erroneous content being allocated into TLBs. > > There are existing workarounds for similar issues, 1165522 is > effectively the same, and 1319367/1319537 is similar but without VHE > support. Rather than add to the selection of errata, the first patch > renames 1165522 to WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT which can be reused (in the > final patch) for 1530923. > > The workaround for errata 1319367 and 1319537 although similar cannot > use VHE (not available on those CPUs) so cannot share the workaround. > However, to keep some sense of symmetry the workaround is renamed to > SPECULATIVE_AT_NVHE. > > Changes since v4: > * Rebased to v5.5-rc1 Looks fine to me. Marc, are you ok with me queueing this via arm64 (that's where the existing workarounds came from), or would you prefer to take them via kvm-arm? Will
On 2020-01-14 16:45, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, Steven Price wrote: >> Version 5 is a rebasing of version 4 (no changes). >> >> This series enables a workaround for Cortex-A55 erratum 1530923. The >> erratum potentially allows TLB entries to be allocated as a result of >> a >> speculative AT instruction. This may happen in the middle of a guest >> world switch while the relevant VMSA configuration is in an >> inconsistent >> state, leading to erroneous content being allocated into TLBs. >> >> There are existing workarounds for similar issues, 1165522 is >> effectively the same, and 1319367/1319537 is similar but without VHE >> support. Rather than add to the selection of errata, the first patch >> renames 1165522 to WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT which can be reused (in >> the >> final patch) for 1530923. >> >> The workaround for errata 1319367 and 1319537 although similar cannot >> use VHE (not available on those CPUs) so cannot share the workaround. >> However, to keep some sense of symmetry the workaround is renamed to >> SPECULATIVE_AT_NVHE. >> >> Changes since v4: >> * Rebased to v5.5-rc1 > > Looks fine to me. Marc, are you ok with me queueing this via arm64 > (that's > where the existing workarounds came from), or would you prefer to take > them > via kvm-arm? Please go ahead and take it (with my ack) via the arm64 tree. Thanks, M.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 07:28:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-01-14 16:45, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:56:28AM +0000, Steven Price wrote: > > > Version 5 is a rebasing of version 4 (no changes). > > > > > > This series enables a workaround for Cortex-A55 erratum 1530923. The > > > erratum potentially allows TLB entries to be allocated as a result > > > of a > > > speculative AT instruction. This may happen in the middle of a guest > > > world switch while the relevant VMSA configuration is in an > > > inconsistent > > > state, leading to erroneous content being allocated into TLBs. > > > > > > There are existing workarounds for similar issues, 1165522 is > > > effectively the same, and 1319367/1319537 is similar but without VHE > > > support. Rather than add to the selection of errata, the first patch > > > renames 1165522 to WORKAROUND_SPECULATIVE_AT which can be reused (in > > > the > > > final patch) for 1530923. > > > > > > The workaround for errata 1319367 and 1319537 although similar cannot > > > use VHE (not available on those CPUs) so cannot share the workaround. > > > However, to keep some sense of symmetry the workaround is renamed to > > > SPECULATIVE_AT_NVHE. > > > > > > Changes since v4: > > > * Rebased to v5.5-rc1 > > > > Looks fine to me. Marc, are you ok with me queueing this via arm64 > > (that's > > where the existing workarounds came from), or would you prefer to take > > them > > via kvm-arm? > > Please go ahead and take it (with my ack) via the arm64 tree. Will do, thanks! Will