preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Jan Beulich]

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.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Stefano Stabellini]

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

Re: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 06.03.18 at 20:24, <sstabellini@kernel.org> 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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Wei Liu]

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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.03.18 at 20:24, <sstabellini@kernel.org> 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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Julien Grall]

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, <sstabellini@kernel.org> 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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Julien Grall]

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, <sstabellini@kernel.org> 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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Stefano Stabellini]

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, <sstabellini@kernel.org> 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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Stefano Stabellini]

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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Julien Grall]

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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Stefano Stabellini]

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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Julien Grall]

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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Julien Grall]

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 0xffff.
	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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Julien Grall]

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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Stefano Stabellini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3905 bytes --]

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!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Re: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Julien Grall]

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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Lars Kurth]

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" <julien.grall@arm.com> 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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Lars Kurth]

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" <lars.kurth@citrix.com> 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" <julien.grall@arm.com> 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: preparations for 4.9.2 and 4.7.5

[Stefano Stabellini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 5044 bytes --]

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
staging-4.8-spectre staging-4.7-spectre).

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel