On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:51:53AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 07/25/2018 09:35 AM, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> >Since commit d3aec8a28be3b8 ("arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI
> >detection to boot-time CPUs") we rely on errata flags being already
> >populated during feature enumeration. The order of errata and
> >features was flipped as part of commit ed478b3f9e4a ("arm64:
> >capabilities: Group handling of features and errata workarounds").
> >
> >Return to the orginal order of errata and feature evaluation to
> >ensure errata flags are present during feature evaluation.
> >
> >Fixes: d3aec8a28be3b8 ("arm64: capabilities: Restrict KPTI
> >detection to boot-time CPUs")
> >CC: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
> >CC: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Dirk Mueller <dmuel...@suse.com>
>
> It would be good to add "Fixes: ed478b3f9e4a" (instead), just to make
> sure this gets fixed everywhere the original problem appears.
>
> >---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >index f24892a40d2c..c6d80743f4ed 100644
> >--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> >@@ -1351,9 +1351,9 @@ static void __update_cpu_capabilities(const struct
> >arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
> > static void update_cpu_capabilities(u16 scope_mask)
> > {
> >- __update_cpu_capabilities(arm64_features, scope_mask, "detected:");
> > __update_cpu_capabilities(arm64_errata, scope_mask,
> > "enabling workaround for");
> >+ __update_cpu_capabilities(arm64_features, scope_mask, "detected:");
> > }
> > static int __enable_cpu_capability(void *arg)
> >@@ -1408,8 +1408,8 @@ __enable_cpu_capabilities(const struct
> >arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
> > static void __init enable_cpu_capabilities(u16 scope_mask)
> > {
> >- __enable_cpu_capabilities(arm64_features, scope_mask);
> > __enable_cpu_capabilities(arm64_errata, scope_mask);
> >+ __enable_cpu_capabilities(arm64_features, scope_mask);
I forget why these were originally reordered in ed478b3f9e4a.
Was there any real reason for it?
I also notice in that commit that after the detection pass, we set
things up (in update_cpu_capabilities(), enable_cpu_capabilities()) in
the order errata, features. Does this matter for anything?
Cheers
---Dave
>
> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
