On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:45 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 03:53:06PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > If guests don't have certain CPU erratum work-arounds implemented, then
> > there is a possibility a guest can deadlock the system. IOW, only trusted
> > guests should be used on systems with the erratum.
> >
> > This is the case for Cortex-A57 erratum 832075.
> >
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index 90cb90561446..e2f50fa4d825 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -1653,6 +1653,10 @@ int kvm_arch_init(void *opaque)
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > + if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_DEVICE_LOAD_ACQUIRE))
> > + kvm_info("Guests without required CPU erratum work-arounds can deadlock system!\n" \
>
> work-arounds => workarounds
>
> (mainly for consistency, I have no clue if this is a real word or not!).
>
> I'd also probably do erratum => errata given that you're about to add a
> second one.
Humm, the plural is on workarounds. If I use a more standard singular
vs. plural form like "CPU feature workarounds" vs "CPU features
workarounds", the former seems more correct to me. (working around
features may be a bit nonsensical, but big.LITTLE ;) )
Rob
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
