On 24/03/2021 16:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 16:25:12 +0000,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2021 16:16, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:51:14 +0000,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com> wrote:
On 24/03/2021 13:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 09:39:13 +0000,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com> wrote:
On 23/03/2021 18:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Hi Suzuki?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:06:33PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
tsb csync synchronizes the trace operation of instructions.
The instruction is a nop when FEAT_TRF is not implemented.
Cc: Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poir...@linaro.org>
Cc: Mike Leach <mike.le...@linaro.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com>
How do you plan to merge these patches? If they go via the coresight
tree:
Ideally all of this should go via the CoreSight tree to have the
dependencies solved at one place. But there are some issues :
If this makes to 5.13 queue for CoreSight,
1) CoreSight next is based on rc2 at the moment and we have fixes gone
into rc3 and later, which this series will depend on. (We could move
the next tree forward to a later rc to solve this).
2) There could be conflicts with the kvmarm tree for the KVM host
changes (That has dependency on the TRBE definitions patch).
If it doesn't make to 5.13 queue, it would be good to have this patch,
the TRBE defintions and the KVM host patches queued for 5.13 (not sure
if this is acceptable) and we could rebase the CoreSight changes on 5.13
and push it to next release.
I am open for other suggestions.
Marc, Mathieu,
Thoughts ?
I was planning to take the first two patches in 5.12 as fixes (they
are queued already, and would hopefully land in -rc5). If that doesn't
fit with the plan, please let me know ASAP.
Marc,
I think it would be better to hold on pushing those patches until we
have a clarity on how things will go.
OK. I thought there was a need for these patches to prevent guest
access to the v8.4 self hosted tracing feature that went in 5.12
though[1]... Did I get it wrong?
Yes, that is correct. The guest could access the Trace Filter Control
register and fiddle with the host settings, without this patch.
e.g, it could disable tracing at EL0/EL1, without the host being
aware on nVHE host.
OK, so we definitely do need these patches, don't we? Both? Just one?
Please have a look at kvmarm/fixes and tell me what I must keep.
Both of them are fixes.
commit "KVM: arm64: Disable guest access to trace filter controls"
- This fixes guest fiddling with the trace filter control as described
above.
commit "KVM: arm64: Hide system instruction access to Trace registers"
- Fixes the Hypervisor to advertise what it doesn't support. i.e
stop advertising trace system instruction access to a guest.
Otherwise a guest which trusts the ID registers
(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.TRACEVER == 1) can crash while trying to access the
trace register as we trap the accesses (CPTR_EL2.TTA == 1). On Linux,
the ETM drivers need a DT explicitly advertising the support. So,
this is not immediately impacted. And this fix goes a long way back
in the history, when the CPTR_EL2.TTA was added.
Now, the reason for asking you to hold on is the way this could create
conflicts in merging the rest of the series.
Suzuki
