From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489A1C5DF9D for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 22:35:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04FBA20714 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 22:35:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387805AbgJ1Wen (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:34:43 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:46374 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388079AbgJ1WcX (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:32:23 -0400 Received: from gaia (unknown [95.145.162.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DF3224810; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:56:21 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Peter Zijlstra , Morten Rasmussen , Qais Yousef , Suren Baghdasaryan , kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support Message-ID: <20201028185620.GK13345@gaia> References: <20201027215118.27003-1-will@kernel.org> <20201027215118.27003-3-will@kernel.org> <20201028111204.GB13345@gaia> <20201028111713.GA27927@willie-the-truck> <20201028112206.GD13345@gaia> <20201028112343.GD27927@willie-the-truck> <20201028114945.GE13345@gaia> <20201028124049.GC28091@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201028124049.GC28091@willie-the-truck> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:40:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:49:46AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:23:43AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:22:06AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:17:13AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:12:04AM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:51:14PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > > +static bool has_32bit_el0(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + return has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope) || __allow_mismatched_32bit_el0; > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > static bool has_useable_gicv3_cpuif(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope) > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > bool has_sre; > > > > > > > @@ -1803,7 +1851,7 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = { > > > > > > > .desc = "32-bit EL0 Support", > > > > > > > .capability = ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0, > > > > > > > .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE, > > > > > > > - .matches = has_cpuid_feature, > > > > > > > + .matches = has_32bit_el0, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, so this one reports 32-bit EL0 support even if no CPU actually > > > > > > supports 32-bit (passing the command line option on TX2 would come up > > > > > > with 32-bit EL0 in dmesg). I'd rather hide the .desc above and print the > > > > > > information elsewhere when have at least one CPU supporting this. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, the problem is if a CPU with 32-bit EL0 support was late-onlined, > > > > > then we would have 32-bit support, so I think this is an oddity that you > > > > > get when the command line is passed. That said, I could nobble .desc and > > > > > print it from the .matches function, with a slightly different message > > > > > when the command line is passed. > > > > > > > > I think we could do a pr_info_once() in update_32bit_cpu_features(). > > > > > > Is that called on a system with one CPU? > > > > Ah, it's not. > > > > Anyway, I see your reasoning behind the late CPUs but I don't > > particularly like abusing the cpufeature support to pretend a > > SYSTEM_FEATURE is available before knowing any CPU has it (maybe we do > > it in other cases, I haven't checked). > > Hmm, but that's exactly what this cmdline option is about. We pretend that > the system has 32-bit EL0 when normally we would say that we don't. So that's more about force-enabling 32-bit irrespective of whether any CPU supports it (not just in the mismatched/asymmetric case). Of course, if the aarch32_el0 mask is empty, the apps would get SIGKILL'ed. > > Could we not instead add a new feature for asymmetric support that's > > defined as ARM64_CPUCAP_WEAK_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE? This would be allowed > > for late CPUs and we keep the system_supports_32bit_el0() unchanged. > > I really don't think this gains us anything. It saves us having to explain to someone passing this option on a TX2 why personality(PER_LINUX32) and even execve() appear to work (well, until SIGKILL). The lscpu tool, for example, uses personality() to display whether the CPUs support 32-bit. Also with PER_LINUX32, /proc/cpuinfo shows the 32-bit HWCAPs. We have compat_elf_hwcap pre-populated with some stuff which is entirely untrue if AArch32 is missing. Thinking about the COMPAT_HWCAPs, do we actually populate them properly on an asymmetric system if the boot CPU is not AArch32-capable? In my original patch I had to defer populating boot_cpu_data with AArch32 information until a capable CPU was found. If not, update_32bit_cpu_features() will set most 32-bit features to 0. > The current users of system_supports_32bit_el0() are: > > - The ELF loader > - CPU feature sanitisation code > - Personality syscall There three need a relaxed system_supports_32bit_el0(), so we could change it to check a new relaxed feature. > - KVM Here I think we need the stronger guarantee, no 32-bit allowed in guests (the original symmetric feature check). > and, afaict, all of these would need to check the new feature if we added > it. I think it would also mean that at least one 32-bit capable CPU would > have to boot early in order for the new feature to be advertised, which > feels like an artificial restriction to me, particularly as you could just > offline it immediately. How strong requirement is to allow late CPUs here? I think we'd miss the COMPAT_HWCAPs as we no longer populate them once user-space started, they are actually setup via smp_cpus_done() -> setup_cpu_features(). -- Catalin