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.gr...@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
