Dear James,
Thanks for this mail and sorry for my late response.
2018-02-16 1:55 GMT+08:00 James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>:
> Hi gengdongjiu, liu jun
>
> On 05/02/18 11:24, gengdongjiu wrote:
[....]
>>
>>> Is the emulated SError routed following the routing rules for HCR_EL2.{AMO,
>>> TGE}?
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> ... and yet ...
>
>
>>> What does your firmware do when it wants to emulate SError but its masked?
>>> (e.g.1: The physical-SError interrupted EL2 and the SPSR shows EL2 had
>>> PSTATE.A set.
>>> e.g.2: The physical-SError interrupted EL2 but HCR_EL2 indicates the
>>> emulated SError should go to EL1. This effectively masks SError.)
>>
>> Currently we does not consider much about the mask status(SPSR).
>
> .. this is a problem.
>
> If you ignore SPSR_EL3 you may deliver an SError to EL1 when the exception
> interrupted EL2. Even if you setup the EL1 register correctly, EL1 can't eret to
> EL2. This should never happen, SError is effectively masked if you are running
> at an EL higher than the one its routed to.
>
> More obviously: if the exception came from the EL that SError should be routed
> to, but PSTATE.A was set, you can't deliver SError. Masking SError is the only
James, I summarized the masking and routing rules for SError to
confirm with you for the firmware first solution,
1. If the HCR_EL2.{AMO,TGE} is set, which means the SError should route to EL2,
When system happens SError and trap to EL3, If EL3 find
HCR_EL2.{AMO,TGE} and SPSR_EL3.A are both set,
and find this SError come from EL2, it will not deliver an SError:
store the RAS error in the BERT and 'reboot'; but if
it find that this SError come from EL1 or EL0, it also need to deliver
an SError, right?
2. If the HCR_EL2.{AMO,TGE} is not set, which means the SError should
route to EL1,
When system happens SError and trap to EL3, If EL3 find
HCR_EL2.{AMO,TGE} and SPSR_EL3.A are both not set,
and find this SError come from EL1, it will not deliver an SError:
store the RAS error in the BERT and 'reboot'; but if
it find that this SError come from EL0, it also need to deliver an
SError, right?
> way the OS has to indicate it can't take an exception right now. VBAR_EL1 may be
> 'wrong' if we're doing some power-management, the FAR/ELR/ESR/SPSR registers may
> contain live values that the OS would lose if you deliver another exception over
> the top.
>
> If you deliver an emulated-SError as the OS eret's, your new ELR will point at
> the eret instruction and the CPU will spin on this instruction forever.
>
> You have to honour the masking and routing rules for SError, otherwise no OS can
> run safely with this firmware.
>
>
>> I remember that you ever suggested firmware should reboot if the mask status
>> is set(SPSR), right?
>
> Yes, this is my suggestion of what to do if you can't deliver an SError: store
> the RAS error in the BERT and 'reboot'.
>
>
>> I CC "liu jun" <liujun88@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> who is our UEFI firmware Architect,
>> if you have firmware requirements, you can raise again.
>
> (UEFI? I didn't think there was any of that at EL3, but I'm not familiar with
> all the 'PI' bits).
>
> The requirement is your emulated-SError from EL3 looks exactly like a
> physical-SError as if EL3 wasn't implemented.
> Your CPU has to handle cases where it can't deliver an SError, your emulation
> has to do the same.
>
> This is not something any OS can work around.
>
>
>>> Answers to these let us determine whether a bug is in the firmware or the
>>> kernel. If firmware is expecting the OS to do something special, I'd like to know
>>> about it from the beginning!
>>
>> I know your meaning, thanks for raising it again.
>
>
> Happy new year,
>
> James
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
