[PATCH] ARM64: errata: Add workaround for HIP10/HIP10C erratum 162200803
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Tue Jul 8 05:47:47 PDT 2025
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 13:05:24 +0100,
Zhou Wang <wangzhou1 at hisilicon.com> wrote:
>
> On 2025/7/3 18:44, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 10:57:13 +0100,
> > Zhou Wang <wangzhou1 at hisilicon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> However,migration between different KVMs will be broken :(
> >> I am not sure that should we consider this case as well?
> >
> > This isn't optional. You cannot break migration on existing systems,
> > and the only case that *must* break is to restore a VM that hasn't
> > seen this limitation on a HW that enforces it.
>
> So the whole story is that we should let GICD_TYPE.num_LPIs as a
> writable field, and set this field from VMM(e.g. QEMU). And it will
> be failed if doing migration between VMs with different num_LPI
> configurations.
Note that on a non-broken system, setting num_LPIs to any value should
always work.
> After above done, this errata could be added.
Which would be the only case where num_LPIs wouldn't be writable, and
set to a fixed value.
Note that an alternative would be to not have a kernel erratum, but to
force num_LPIs from userspace when running on your platform. But that
implies that: you have your own, non-upstream VMM, and that there is
no opportunity for userspace to adversely impact the system as a whole.
> Not sure my thought above is right? I will try to prepare a num_LPIs
> writable patch if the direction is right.
I think you got the gist of it.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list