Hi Marc, On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 09:55:57AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-04-14 22:31, Will Deacon wrote: > > Although we emit a "SANITY CHECK" warning and taint the kernel if we > > detect a CPU mismatch for AArch32 support at EL1, we still online the > > CPU with disastrous consequences for any running 32-bit VMs. > > > > Introduce a capability for AArch32 support at EL1 so that late onlining > > of incompatible CPUs is forbidden. > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Definitely an improvement over the current situation, as the direct read > of ID_AA64PFR0 was always a bit dodgy. Given that I'm pretty sure these new > braindead SoCs are going to run an older version of the kernel, should we > Cc stable for this? I don't think there's a real need for -stable given that we do at least taint the kernel. That's likely to annoy vendors enough to backport this themselves ;) Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
