linux/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h

543 lines
18 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* Copyright (C) 2014 Linaro Ltd. <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*/
#ifndef __ASM_CPUFEATURE_H
#define __ASM_CPUFEATURE_H
#include <asm/cpucaps.h>
#include <asm/cputype.h>
#include <asm/hwcap.h>
#include <asm/sysreg.h>
/*
* In the arm64 world (as in the ARM world), elf_hwcap is used both internally
* in the kernel and for user space to keep track of which optional features
* are supported by the current system. So let's map feature 'x' to HWCAP_x.
* Note that HWCAP_x constants are bit fields so we need to take the log.
*/
#define MAX_CPU_FEATURES (8 * sizeof(elf_hwcap))
#define cpu_feature(x) ilog2(HWCAP_ ## x)
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
#include <linux/bug.h>
#include <linux/jump_label.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
/*
* CPU feature register tracking
*
* The safe value of a CPUID feature field is dependent on the implications
* of the values assigned to it by the architecture. Based on the relationship
* between the values, the features are classified into 3 types - LOWER_SAFE,
* HIGHER_SAFE and EXACT.
*
* The lowest value of all the CPUs is chosen for LOWER_SAFE and highest
* for HIGHER_SAFE. It is expected that all CPUs have the same value for
* a field when EXACT is specified, failing which, the safe value specified
* in the table is chosen.
*/
enum ftr_type {
FTR_EXACT, /* Use a predefined safe value */
FTR_LOWER_SAFE, /* Smaller value is safe */
FTR_HIGHER_SAFE,/* Bigger value is safe */
};
#define FTR_STRICT true /* SANITY check strict matching required */
#define FTR_NONSTRICT false /* SANITY check ignored */
#define FTR_SIGNED true /* Value should be treated as signed */
#define FTR_UNSIGNED false /* Value should be treated as unsigned */
#define FTR_VISIBLE true /* Feature visible to the user space */
#define FTR_HIDDEN false /* Feature is hidden from the user */
#define FTR_VISIBLE_IF_IS_ENABLED(config) \
(IS_ENABLED(config) ? FTR_VISIBLE : FTR_HIDDEN)
struct arm64_ftr_bits {
bool sign; /* Value is signed ? */
bool visible;
bool strict; /* CPU Sanity check: strict matching required ? */
enum ftr_type type;
u8 shift;
u8 width;
s64 safe_val; /* safe value for FTR_EXACT features */
};
/*
* @arm64_ftr_reg - Feature register
* @strict_mask Bits which should match across all CPUs for sanity.
* @sys_val Safe value across the CPUs (system view)
*/
struct arm64_ftr_reg {
const char *name;
u64 strict_mask;
u64 user_mask;
u64 sys_val;
u64 user_val;
const struct arm64_ftr_bits *ftr_bits;
};
extern struct arm64_ftr_reg arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0;
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
/*
* CPU capabilities:
*
* We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent system features, errata work
* arounds (both used internally by kernel and tracked in cpu_hwcaps) and
* ELF HWCAPs (which are exposed to user).
*
* To support systems with heterogeneous CPUs, we need to make sure that we
* detect the capabilities correctly on the system and take appropriate
* measures to ensure there are no incompatibilities.
*
* This comment tries to explain how we treat the capabilities.
* Each capability has the following list of attributes :
*
* 1) Scope of Detection : The system detects a given capability by
* performing some checks at runtime. This could be, e.g, checking the
* value of a field in CPU ID feature register or checking the cpu
* model. The capability provides a call back ( @matches() ) to
* perform the check. Scope defines how the checks should be performed.
* There are three cases:
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
*
* a) SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU: check all the CPUs and "detect" if at least one
* matches. This implies, we have to run the check on all the
* booting CPUs, until the system decides that state of the
* capability is finalised. (See section 2 below)
* Or
* b) SCOPE_SYSTEM: check all the CPUs and "detect" if all the CPUs
* matches. This implies, we run the check only once, when the
* system decides to finalise the state of the capability. If the
* capability relies on a field in one of the CPU ID feature
* registers, we use the sanitised value of the register from the
* CPU feature infrastructure to make the decision.
* Or
* c) SCOPE_BOOT_CPU: Check only on the primary boot CPU to detect the
* feature. This category is for features that are "finalised"
* (or used) by the kernel very early even before the SMP cpus
* are brought up.
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
*
* The process of detection is usually denoted by "update" capability
* state in the code.
*
* 2) Finalise the state : The kernel should finalise the state of a
* capability at some point during its execution and take necessary
* actions if any. Usually, this is done, after all the boot-time
* enabled CPUs are brought up by the kernel, so that it can make
* better decision based on the available set of CPUs. However, there
* are some special cases, where the action is taken during the early
* boot by the primary boot CPU. (e.g, running the kernel at EL2 with
* Virtualisation Host Extensions). The kernel usually disallows any
* changes to the state of a capability once it finalises the capability
* and takes any action, as it may be impossible to execute the actions
* safely. A CPU brought up after a capability is "finalised" is
* referred to as "Late CPU" w.r.t the capability. e.g, all secondary
* CPUs are treated "late CPUs" for capabilities determined by the boot
* CPU.
*
* At the moment there are two passes of finalising the capabilities.
* a) Boot CPU scope capabilities - Finalised by primary boot CPU via
* setup_boot_cpu_capabilities().
* b) Everything except (a) - Run via setup_system_capabilities().
*
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
* 3) Verification: When a CPU is brought online (e.g, by user or by the
* kernel), the kernel should make sure that it is safe to use the CPU,
* by verifying that the CPU is compliant with the state of the
* capabilities finalised already. This happens via :
*
* secondary_start_kernel()-> check_local_cpu_capabilities()
*
* As explained in (2) above, capabilities could be finalised at
* different points in the execution. Each newly booted CPU is verified
* against the capabilities that have been finalised by the time it
* boots.
*
* a) SCOPE_BOOT_CPU : All CPUs are verified against the capability
* except for the primary boot CPU.
*
* b) SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU, SCOPE_SYSTEM: All CPUs hotplugged on by the
* user after the kernel boot are verified against the capability.
*
* If there is a conflict, the kernel takes an action, based on the
* severity (e.g, a CPU could be prevented from booting or cause a
* kernel panic). The CPU is allowed to "affect" the state of the
* capability, if it has not been finalised already. See section 5
* for more details on conflicts.
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
*
* 4) Action: As mentioned in (2), the kernel can take an action for each
* detected capability, on all CPUs on the system. Appropriate actions
* include, turning on an architectural feature, modifying the control
* registers (e.g, SCTLR, TCR etc.) or patching the kernel via
* alternatives. The kernel patching is batched and performed at later
* point. The actions are always initiated only after the capability
* is finalised. This is usally denoted by "enabling" the capability.
* The actions are initiated as follows :
* a) Action is triggered on all online CPUs, after the capability is
* finalised, invoked within the stop_machine() context from
* enable_cpu_capabilitie().
*
* b) Any late CPU, brought up after (1), the action is triggered via:
*
* check_local_cpu_capabilities() -> verify_local_cpu_capabilities()
*
arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | |-----------------------------| | a | y | n | |-----------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled. ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability. Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:32 +00:00
* 5) Conflicts: Based on the state of the capability on a late CPU vs.
* the system state, we could have the following combinations :
*
* x-----------------------------x
* | Type | System | Late CPU |
* |-----------------------------|
* | a | y | n |
* |-----------------------------|
* | b | n | y |
* x-----------------------------x
*
* Two separate flag bits are defined to indicate whether each kind of
* conflict can be allowed:
* ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - Case(a) is allowed
* ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - Case(b) is allowed
*
* Case (a) is not permitted for a capability that the system requires
* all CPUs to have in order for the capability to be enabled. This is
* typical for capabilities that represent enhanced functionality.
*
* Case (b) is not permitted for a capability that must be enabled
* during boot if any CPU in the system requires it in order to run
* safely. This is typical for erratum work arounds that cannot be
* enabled after the corresponding capability is finalised.
*
* In some non-typical cases either both (a) and (b), or neither,
* should be permitted. This can be described by including neither
* or both flags in the capability's type field.
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
*/
/*
* Decide how the capability is detected.
* On any local CPU vs System wide vs the primary boot CPU
*/
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU ((u16)BIT(0))
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_SYSTEM ((u16)BIT(1))
/*
* The capabilitiy is detected on the Boot CPU and is used by kernel
* during early boot. i.e, the capability should be "detected" and
* "enabled" as early as possibly on all booting CPUs.
*/
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_BOOT_CPU ((u16)BIT(2))
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_MASK \
(ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_SYSTEM | \
ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU | \
ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_BOOT_CPU)
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
#define SCOPE_SYSTEM ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_SYSTEM
#define SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU
#define SCOPE_BOOT_CPU ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_BOOT_CPU
#define SCOPE_ALL ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_MASK
arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | |-----------------------------| | a | y | n | |-----------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled. ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability. Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:32 +00:00
/*
* Is it permitted for a late CPU to have this capability when system
* hasn't already enabled it ?
*/
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU ((u16)BIT(4))
/* Is it safe for a late CPU to miss this capability when system has it */
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU ((u16)BIT(5))
/*
* CPU errata workarounds that need to be enabled at boot time if one or
* more CPUs in the system requires it. When one of these capabilities
* has been enabled, it is safe to allow any CPU to boot that doesn't
* require the workaround. However, it is not safe if a "late" CPU
* requires a workaround and the system hasn't enabled it already.
*/
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_LOCAL_CPU_ERRATUM \
(ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU | ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU)
/*
* CPU feature detected at boot time based on system-wide value of a
* feature. It is safe for a late CPU to have this feature even though
* the system hasn't enabled it, although the feature will not be used
arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | |-----------------------------| | a | y | n | |-----------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled. ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability. Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:32 +00:00
* by Linux in this case. If the system has enabled this feature already,
* then every late CPU must have it.
*/
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE \
(ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_SYSTEM | ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU)
/*
* CPU feature detected at boot time based on feature of one or more CPUs.
* All possible conflicts for a late CPU are ignored.
*/
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_WEAK_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE \
(ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU | \
ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU | \
ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU)
arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | |-----------------------------| | a | y | n | |-----------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled. ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability. Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:32 +00:00
/*
* CPU feature detected at boot time, on one or more CPUs. A late CPU
* is not allowed to have the capability when the system doesn't have it.
* It is Ok for a late CPU to miss the feature.
*/
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_BOOT_RESTRICTED_CPU_LOCAL_FEATURE \
(ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU | \
ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU)
/*
* CPU feature used early in the boot based on the boot CPU. All secondary
* CPUs must match the state of the capability as detected by the boot CPU.
*/
#define ARM64_CPUCAP_STRICT_BOOT_CPU_FEATURE ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_BOOT_CPU
struct arm64_cpu_capabilities {
const char *desc;
u16 capability;
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
u16 type;
bool (*matches)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps, int scope);
2018-03-26 14:12:28 +00:00
/*
* Take the appropriate actions to enable this capability for this CPU.
* For each successfully booted CPU, this method is called for each
* globally detected capability.
*/
void (*cpu_enable)(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap);
union {
struct { /* To be used for erratum handling only */
struct midr_range midr_range;
const struct arm64_midr_revidr {
u32 midr_rv; /* revision/variant */
u32 revidr_mask;
} * const fixed_revs;
};
const struct midr_range *midr_range_list;
struct { /* Feature register checking */
u32 sys_reg;
u8 field_pos;
u8 min_field_value;
u8 hwcap_type;
bool sign;
unsigned long hwcap;
};
arm64: capabilities: Handle shared entries Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap. This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations of a capability by maintaining list of matches + cpu_enable callbacks. To avoid complicating the prototypes for the "matches()", we use arm64_cpu_capabilities maintain the list and we ignore all the other fields except the matches & cpu_enable. This ensures : 1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects 2) Action is only taken for the entries that "matches". This avoids explicit checks in the cpu_enable() take some action. The only constraint here is that, all the entries should have the same "type" (i.e, scope and conflict rules). If a cpu_enable() method is associated with multiple matches for a single capability, care should be taken that either the match criteria are mutually exclusive, or that the method is robust against being called multiple times. This also reverts the changes introduced by commit 67948af41f2e6818ed ("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a capability"). Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:46 +00:00
/*
* A list of "matches/cpu_enable" pair for the same
* "capability" of the same "type" as described by the parent.
* Only matches(), cpu_enable() and fields relevant to these
* methods are significant in the list. The cpu_enable is
* invoked only if the corresponding entry "matches()".
* However, if a cpu_enable() method is associated
* with multiple matches(), care should be taken that either
* the match criteria are mutually exclusive, or that the
* method is robust against being called multiple times.
*/
const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *match_list;
};
};
arm64: capabilities: Prepare for fine grained capabilities We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities have some properties that decide how they should be treated : 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either : - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU) Or - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM) 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code. Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps, which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI) and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability. 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | ------------------------------| | a | y | n | ------------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability. And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly, we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above. We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability. As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:31 +00:00
static inline int cpucap_default_scope(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
{
return cap->type & ARM64_CPUCAP_SCOPE_MASK;
}
arm64: capabilities: Add flags to handle the conflicts on late CPU When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations of conflict. x-----------------------------x | Type | System | Late CPU | |-----------------------------| | a | y | n | |-----------------------------| | b | n | y | x-----------------------------x Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as long as the system already enables it. Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc). Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled. ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability. Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE. Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2018-03-26 14:12:32 +00:00
static inline bool
cpucap_late_cpu_optional(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
{
return !!(cap->type & ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU);
}
static inline bool
cpucap_late_cpu_permitted(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
{
return !!(cap->type & ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU);
}
extern DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
extern struct static_key_false cpu_hwcap_keys[ARM64_NCAPS];
arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path Currently, cpus_set_cap() calls static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(), which must take the jump_label mutex. We call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary bringup path, from the idle thread where interrupts are disabled. Taking a mutex in this path "is a NONO" regardless of whether it's contended, and something we must avoid. We didn't spot this until recently, as ___might_sleep() won't warn for this case until all CPUs have been brought up. This patch avoids taking the mutex in the secondary bringup path. The poking of static keys is deferred until enable_cpu_capabilities(), which runs in a suitable context on the boot CPU. To account for the static keys being set later, cpus_have_const_cap() is updated to use another static key to check whether the const cap keys have been initialised, falling back to the caps bitmap until this is the case. This means that users of cpus_have_const_cap() gain should only gain a single additional NOP in the fast path once the const caps are initialised, but should always see the current cap value. The hyp code should never dereference the caps array, since the caps are initialized before we run the module initcall to initialise hyp. A check is added to the hyp init code to document this requirement. This change will sidestep a number of issues when the upcoming hotplug locking rework is merged. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyniger <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2017-05-16 14:18:05 +00:00
extern struct static_key_false arm64_const_caps_ready;
bool this_cpu_has_cap(unsigned int cap);
static inline bool cpu_have_feature(unsigned int num)
{
return elf_hwcap & (1UL << num);
}
/* System capability check for constant caps */
arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path Currently, cpus_set_cap() calls static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(), which must take the jump_label mutex. We call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary bringup path, from the idle thread where interrupts are disabled. Taking a mutex in this path "is a NONO" regardless of whether it's contended, and something we must avoid. We didn't spot this until recently, as ___might_sleep() won't warn for this case until all CPUs have been brought up. This patch avoids taking the mutex in the secondary bringup path. The poking of static keys is deferred until enable_cpu_capabilities(), which runs in a suitable context on the boot CPU. To account for the static keys being set later, cpus_have_const_cap() is updated to use another static key to check whether the const cap keys have been initialised, falling back to the caps bitmap until this is the case. This means that users of cpus_have_const_cap() gain should only gain a single additional NOP in the fast path once the const caps are initialised, but should always see the current cap value. The hyp code should never dereference the caps array, since the caps are initialized before we run the module initcall to initialise hyp. A check is added to the hyp init code to document this requirement. This change will sidestep a number of issues when the upcoming hotplug locking rework is merged. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyniger <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2017-05-16 14:18:05 +00:00
static inline bool __cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
{
if (num >= ARM64_NCAPS)
return false;
return static_branch_unlikely(&cpu_hwcap_keys[num]);
}
static inline bool cpus_have_cap(unsigned int num)
{
if (num >= ARM64_NCAPS)
return false;
return test_bit(num, cpu_hwcaps);
}
arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path Currently, cpus_set_cap() calls static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(), which must take the jump_label mutex. We call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary bringup path, from the idle thread where interrupts are disabled. Taking a mutex in this path "is a NONO" regardless of whether it's contended, and something we must avoid. We didn't spot this until recently, as ___might_sleep() won't warn for this case until all CPUs have been brought up. This patch avoids taking the mutex in the secondary bringup path. The poking of static keys is deferred until enable_cpu_capabilities(), which runs in a suitable context on the boot CPU. To account for the static keys being set later, cpus_have_const_cap() is updated to use another static key to check whether the const cap keys have been initialised, falling back to the caps bitmap until this is the case. This means that users of cpus_have_const_cap() gain should only gain a single additional NOP in the fast path once the const caps are initialised, but should always see the current cap value. The hyp code should never dereference the caps array, since the caps are initialized before we run the module initcall to initialise hyp. A check is added to the hyp init code to document this requirement. This change will sidestep a number of issues when the upcoming hotplug locking rework is merged. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyniger <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2017-05-16 14:18:05 +00:00
static inline bool cpus_have_const_cap(int num)
{
if (static_branch_likely(&arm64_const_caps_ready))
return __cpus_have_const_cap(num);
else
return cpus_have_cap(num);
}
static inline void cpus_set_cap(unsigned int num)
{
if (num >= ARM64_NCAPS) {
pr_warn("Attempt to set an illegal CPU capability (%d >= %d)\n",
num, ARM64_NCAPS);
} else {
__set_bit(num, cpu_hwcaps);
}
}
static inline int __attribute_const__
cpuid_feature_extract_signed_field_width(u64 features, int field, int width)
{
return (s64)(features << (64 - width - field)) >> (64 - width);
}
static inline int __attribute_const__
cpuid_feature_extract_signed_field(u64 features, int field)
{
return cpuid_feature_extract_signed_field_width(features, field, 4);
}
static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__
cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field_width(u64 features, int field, int width)
{
return (u64)(features << (64 - width - field)) >> (64 - width);
}
static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__
cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(u64 features, int field)
{
return cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field_width(features, field, 4);
}
static inline u64 arm64_ftr_mask(const struct arm64_ftr_bits *ftrp)
{
return (u64)GENMASK(ftrp->shift + ftrp->width - 1, ftrp->shift);
}
static inline u64 arm64_ftr_reg_user_value(const struct arm64_ftr_reg *reg)
{
return (reg->user_val | (reg->sys_val & reg->user_mask));
}
static inline int __attribute_const__
cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(u64 features, int field, int width, bool sign)
{
return (sign) ?
cpuid_feature_extract_signed_field_width(features, field, width) :
cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field_width(features, field, width);
}
static inline int __attribute_const__
cpuid_feature_extract_field(u64 features, int field, bool sign)
{
return cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(features, field, 4, sign);
}
static inline s64 arm64_ftr_value(const struct arm64_ftr_bits *ftrp, u64 val)
{
return (s64)cpuid_feature_extract_field_width(val, ftrp->shift, ftrp->width, ftrp->sign);
}
static inline bool id_aa64mmfr0_mixed_endian_el0(u64 mmfr0)
{
return cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0, ID_AA64MMFR0_BIGENDEL_SHIFT) == 0x1 ||
cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(mmfr0, ID_AA64MMFR0_BIGENDEL0_SHIFT) == 0x1;
}
static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_32bit_el0(u64 pfr0)
{
u32 val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_SHIFT);
return val == ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_32BIT_64BIT;
}
static inline bool id_aa64pfr0_sve(u64 pfr0)
{
u32 val = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr0, ID_AA64PFR0_SVE_SHIFT);
return val > 0;
}
void __init setup_cpu_features(void);
arm64: Rearrange CPU errata workaround checks Right now we run through the work around checks on a CPU from __cpuinfo_store_cpu. There are some problems with that: 1) We initialise the system wide CPU feature registers only after the Boot CPU updates its cpuinfo. Now, if a work around depends on the variance of a CPU ID feature (e.g, check for Cache Line size mismatch), we have no way of performing it cleanly for the boot CPU. 2) It is out of place, invoked from __cpuinfo_store_cpu() in cpuinfo.c. It is not an obvious place for that. This patch rearranges the CPU specific capability(aka work around) checks. 1) At the moment we use verify_local_cpu_capabilities() to check if a new CPU has all the system advertised features. Use this for the secondary CPUs to perform the work around check. For that we rename verify_local_cpu_capabilities() => check_local_cpu_capabilities() which: If the system wide capabilities haven't been initialised (i.e, the CPU is activated at the boot), update the system wide detected work arounds. Otherwise (i.e a CPU hotplugged in later) verify that this CPU conforms to the system wide capabilities. 2) Boot CPU updates the work arounds from smp_prepare_boot_cpu() after we have initialised the system wide CPU feature values. Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
2016-09-09 13:07:10 +00:00
void check_local_cpu_capabilities(void);
u64 read_sanitised_ftr_reg(u32 id);
static inline bool cpu_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void)
{
return id_aa64mmfr0_mixed_endian_el0(read_cpuid(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1));
}
static inline bool system_supports_32bit_el0(void)
{
return cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL0);
}
static inline bool system_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void)
{
return id_aa64mmfr0_mixed_endian_el0(read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1));
}
static inline bool system_supports_fpsimd(void)
{
return !cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_NO_FPSIMD);
}
static inline bool system_uses_ttbr0_pan(void)
{
return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN) &&
!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_PAN);
}
static inline bool system_supports_sve(void)
{
return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_SVE) &&
cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_SVE);
}
arm64: mm: Support Common Not Private translations Common Not Private (CNP) is a feature of ARMv8.2 extension which allows translation table entries to be shared between different PEs in the same inner shareable domain, so the hardware can use this fact to optimise the caching of such entries in the TLB. CNP occupies one bit in TTBRx_ELy and VTTBR_EL2, which advertises to the hardware that the translation table entries pointed to by this TTBR are the same as every PE in the same inner shareable domain for which the equivalent TTBR also has CNP bit set. In case CNP bit is set but TTBR does not point at the same translation table entries for a given ASID and VMID, then the system is mis-configured, so the results of translations are UNPREDICTABLE. For kernel we postpone setting CNP till all cpus are up and rely on cpufeature framework to 1) patch the code which is sensitive to CNP and 2) update TTBR1_EL1 with CNP bit set. TTBR1_EL1 can be reprogrammed as result of hibernation or cpuidle (via __enable_mmu). For these two cases we restore CnP bit via __cpu_suspend_exit(). There are a few cases we need to care of changes in TTBR0_EL1: - a switch to idmap - software emulated PAN we rule out latter via Kconfig options and for the former we make sure that CNP is set for non-zero ASIDs only. Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> [catalin.marinas@arm.com: default y for CONFIG_ARM64_CNP] Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
2018-07-31 13:08:56 +00:00
static inline bool system_supports_cnp(void)
{
return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_CNP) &&
cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_CNP);
}
#define ARM64_SSBD_UNKNOWN -1
#define ARM64_SSBD_FORCE_DISABLE 0
#define ARM64_SSBD_KERNEL 1
#define ARM64_SSBD_FORCE_ENABLE 2
#define ARM64_SSBD_MITIGATED 3
static inline int arm64_get_ssbd_state(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD
extern int ssbd_state;
return ssbd_state;
#else
return ARM64_SSBD_UNKNOWN;
#endif
}
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SSBD
void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state);
#else
static inline void arm64_set_ssbd_mitigation(bool state) {}
#endif
extern int do_emulate_mrs(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 sys_reg, u32 rt);
#endif /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
#endif