[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: Warn user on cpu errata 832075
Hi, > On 14 Oct 2020, at 22:15, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2020, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 14/10/2020 17:03, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>>> On 14 Oct 2020, at 12:35, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 14/10/2020 11:41, Bertrand Marquis wrote: >>>>> When a Cortex A57 processor is affected by CPU errata 832075, a guest >>>>> not implementing the workaround for it could deadlock the system. >>>>> Add a warning during boot informing the user that only trusted guests >>>>> should be executed on the system. >>>>> An equivalent warning is already given to the user by KVM on cores >>>>> affected by this errata. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> xen/arch/arm/cpuerrata.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/cpuerrata.c b/xen/arch/arm/cpuerrata.c >>>>> index 6c09017515..8f9ab6dde1 100644 >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/cpuerrata.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/cpuerrata.c >>>>> @@ -240,6 +240,26 @@ static int enable_ic_inv_hardening(void *data) >>>>> >>>>> #endif >>>>> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_ERRATUM_832075 >>>>> + >>>>> +static int warn_device_load_acquire_errata(void *data) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + static bool warned = false; >>>>> + >>>>> + if ( !warned ) >>>>> + { >>>>> + warning_add("This CPU is affected by the errata 832075.\n" >>>>> + "Guests without required CPU erratum workarounds\n" >>>>> + "can deadlock the system!\n" >>>>> + "Only trusted guests should be used on this >>>>> system.\n"); >>>>> + warned = true; >>>> >>>> This is an antipattern, which probably wants fixing elsewhere as well. >>>> >>>> warning_add() is __init. It's not legitimate to call from a non-init >>>> function, and a less useless build system would have modpost to object. >>>> >>>> The ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_1 instance asserts based on system state, >>>> but this provides no safety at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> What warning_add() actually does is queue messages for some point near >>>> the end of boot. It's not clear that this is even a clever thing to do. >>>> >>>> I'm very tempted to suggest a blanket change to printk_once(). >>> >>> If this is needed then this could be done in an other serie ? >> >> The callback ->enable() will be called when a CPU is onlined/offlined. So >> this >> is going to require if you plan to support CPU hotplugs or suspend resume. >> >>> Would be good to keep this patch as purely handling the errata. > > My preference would be to keep this patch small with just the errata, > maybe using a simple printk_once as Andrew and Julien discussed. > > There is another instance of warning_add potentially being called > outside __init in xen/arch/arm/cpuerrata.c: > enable_smccc_arch_workaround_1. So if you are up for it, it would be > good to produce a patch to fix that too. > > >> In the case of this patch, how about moving the warning_add() in >> enable_errata_workarounds()? >> >> By then we should now all the errata present on your platform. All CPUs >> onlined afterwards (i.e. runtime) should always abide to the set discover >> during boot. > > If I understand your suggestion correctly, it would work for > warn_device_load_acquire_errata, because it is just a warning, but it > would not work for enable_smccc_arch_workaround_1, because there is > actually a call to be made there. > > Maybe it would be simpler to use printk_once in both cases? I don't have > a strong preference either way. I could do the following (in a serie of 2 patches): - modify enable_smccc_arch_workaround_1 to use printk_once with a prefix/suffix “****” on each line printed (and maybe adapting print to fit a line length of 80) - modify my patch to do the print in enable_errata_workarounds using also the prefix/suffix and printk_once Please confirm that this strategy would fit everyone. Cheers Bertrand
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |