[PATCH V7 04/10] arm64: exception: handle Synchronous External Abort

[Baicar, Tyler]

Hello James,


On 1/17/2017 3:31 AM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Tyler,
>
> On 12/01/17 18:15, Tyler Baicar wrote:
>> SEA exceptions are often caused by an uncorrected hardware
>> error, and are handled when data abort and instruction abort
>> exception classes have specific values for their Fault Status
>> Code.
>> When SEA occurs, before killing the process, go through
>> the handlers registered in the notification list.
>> Update fault_info[] with specific SEA faults so that the
>> new SEA handler is used.
>> @@ -480,6 +496,28 @@ static int do_bad(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>>   	return 1;
>>   }
>>   
>> +/*
>> + * This abort handler deals with Synchronous External Abort.
>> + * It calls notifiers, and then returns "fault".
>> + */
>> +static int do_sea(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> +	struct siginfo info;
>> +
>> +	atomic_notifier_call_chain(&sea_handler_chain, 0, NULL);
>> +
>> +	pr_err("Synchronous External Abort: %s (0x%08x) at 0x%016lx\n",
>> +		 fault_name(esr), esr, addr);
>> +
>> +	info.si_signo = SIGBUS;
>> +	info.si_errno = 0;
>> +	info.si_code  = 0;
> Half of the other do_*() functions in this file read the signo and code from the
> fault_info table.
>
>
>> +	info.si_addr  = (void __user *)addr;
> addr here was read from FAR_EL1, but for some of the classes of exception you
> have listed below this register isn't updated with the faulting address.
>
> The ARM-ARM version 'k' in D1.10.5 "Summary of registers on faults taken to an
> Exception level that is using Aarch64" has:
>> The architecture permits that the FAR_ELx is UNKNOWN for Synchronous External
>> Aborts other than Synchronous External Aborts on Translation Table Walks. In
>> this case, the ISS.FnV bit returned in ESR_ELx  indicates whether FAR_ELx is
>> valid.
> This is a problem if we get 'synchronous external abort' or 'synchronous parity
> error' while a user space process was running.
It looks like this would just cause an incorrect address to be printed 
in the above pr_err.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see arm64_notify_die or anything 
that gets called from
there using the info.si_addr variable.

What do you suggest I do here? The firmware should be reporting the 
physical and virtual
address information if it is available in the HEST entry that the kernel 
will parse. So should I
just remove the use of the addr parameter in do_sea?

Thanks,
Tyler
>> +	arm64_notify_die("", regs, &info, esr);
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static const struct fault_info {
>>   	int	(*fn)(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr, struct pt_regs *regs);
>>   	int	sig;
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
>

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.