On 03/13/2018 04:34 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > Add some assertions that if we're about to boot an AArch64 kernel, > the board code has not mistakenly set either secure_boot or > secure_board_setup. It doesn't make sense to set secure_boot, > because all AArch64 kernels must be booted in non-secure mode. > > It might in theory make sense to set secure_board_setup, but > we don't currently support that, because only the AArch32 > bootloader[] code calls this hook; bootloader_aarch64[] does not. > Since we don't have a current need for this functionality, just > assert that we don't try to use it. If it's needed we'll add > it later. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> > --- > hw/arm/boot.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/hw/arm/boot.c b/hw/arm/boot.c > index 196c7fb242..e21a92f972 100644 > --- a/hw/arm/boot.c > +++ b/hw/arm/boot.c > @@ -720,6 +720,13 @@ static void do_cpu_reset(void *opaque) > } else { > env->pstate = PSTATE_MODE_EL1h; > } > + /* AArch64 kernels never boot in secure mode */ > + assert(!info->secure_boot); > + /* This hook is only supported for AArch32 currently: > + * bootloader_aarch64[] will not call the hook, and > + * the code above has already dropped us into EL2 or EL1. > + */ > + assert(!info->secure_board_setup); > } > > /* Set to non-secure if not a secure boot */ >