[PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: spin-table: handle unmapped cpu-release-addrs

[Mark Rutland]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 01:00:40PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 30 July 2014 13:30, Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> >>
> >> In certain cases the cpu-release-addr of a CPU may not fall in the
> >> linear mapping (e.g. when the kernel is loaded above this address due to
> >> the presence of other images in memory). This is problematic for the
> >> spin-table code as it assumes that it can trivially convert a
> >> cpu-release-addr to a valid VA in the linear map.
> >>
> >> This patch modifies the spin-table code to use a temporary cached
> >> mapping to write to a given cpu-release-addr, enabling us to support
> >> addresses regardless of whether they are covered by the linear mapping.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> >> Tested-by: Mark Salter <msalter at redhat.com>
> >> [ardb: added (__force void *) cast]
> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/smp_spin_table.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> >>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > I'm nervous about this. What if the spin table sits in the same physical 64k
> > frame as a read-sensitive device and we're running with 64k pages?
> >
> 
> I see what you mean. This is potentially hairy, as EFI already
> ioremap_cache()s everything known to it as normal DRAM, so using plain
> ioremap() here if pfn_valid() returns false for cpu-release-addr's PFN
> may still result in mappings with different attributes for the same
> region. So how should we decide whether to call ioremap() or
> ioremap_cache() in this case?

If we're careful about handling mismatched attributes we might be able
to get away with always using a device mapping.

I'll need to have a think about that, I'm not sure on the architected
cache behaviour in such a case.

Thanks,
Mark.