[PATCHv3 5/5] arm64: add runtime system sanity checks

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 09:29:10PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> On 06/26/2014 11:18 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Unexpected variation in certain system register values across CPUs is an
> > indicator of potential problems with a system. The kernel expects CPUs
> > to be mostly identical in terms of supported features, even in systems
> > with heterogeneous CPUs, with uniform instruction set support being
> > critical for the correct operation of userspace.
> > 
> > To help detect issues early where hardware violates the expectations of
> > the kernel, this patch adds simple runtime sanity checks on important ID
> > registers in the bring up path of each CPU.
> > 
> > Where CPUs are fundamentally mismatched, set TAINT_CPU_OUT_OF_SPEC.
> > Given that the kernel assumes CPUs are identical feature wise, let's not
> > pretend that we expect such configurations to work. Supporting such
> > configurations would require massive rework, and hopefully they will
> > never exist.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 92 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
> 
> > +	/* If different, timekeeping will be broken (especially with KVM) */
> > +	diff |= CHECK(cntfrq, boot, cur, cpu);
> 
> You're calling this a "CPU feature" but I thought this was purely a firmware
> setting. Does the architecture even allow hardware to program this register?
> Additionally, in arch_timer_detect_rate it appears that a device tree setting
> takes precedence, but you're not checking that.

KVM virtual machines tend to rely on CNTFRQ being programmed correctly,
since it's not generally possible for the software generating the
device-tree (kvmtool, qemu) to probe the frequency on the host.

Will