On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 05:34:46PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 10:41:10 +0000,
> Mikołaj Lenczewski <miko.lenczewski@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c
> > index c6b185b885f7..9728faa10390 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c
> > @@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ static const struct ftr_set_desc sw_features __prel64_initconst = {
> > FIELD("nokaslr", ARM64_SW_FEATURE_OVERRIDE_NOKASLR, NULL),
> > FIELD("hvhe", ARM64_SW_FEATURE_OVERRIDE_HVHE, hvhe_filter),
> > FIELD("rodataoff", ARM64_SW_FEATURE_OVERRIDE_RODATA_OFF, NULL),
> > + FIELD("nobbml2", ARM64_SW_FEATURE_OVERRIDE_NOBBML2, NULL),
> > {}
> > },
> > };
> > @@ -246,6 +247,7 @@ static const struct {
> > { "rodata=off", "arm64_sw.rodataoff=1" },
> > { "arm64.nolva", "id_aa64mmfr2.varange=0" },
> > { "arm64.no32bit_el0", "id_aa64pfr0.el0=1" },
> > + { "arm64.nobbml2", "arm64_sw.nobbml2=1" },
>
> Why is that a SW feature? This looks very much like a HW feature to
> me, and you should instead mask out ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1.BBM, and be done
> with it. Something like:
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c
> index c6b185b885f70..803a0c99f7b46 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/idreg-override.c
> @@ -102,6 +102,7 @@ static const struct ftr_set_desc mmfr2 __prel64_initconst = {
> .override = &id_aa64mmfr2_override,
> .fields = {
> FIELD("varange", ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1_VARange_SHIFT, mmfr2_varange_filter),
> + FIELD("bbm", ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1_BBM_SHIFT, NULL),
> {}
> },
> };
> @@ -246,6 +247,7 @@ static const struct {
> { "rodata=off", "arm64_sw.rodataoff=1" },
> { "arm64.nolva", "id_aa64mmfr2.varange=0" },
> { "arm64.no32bit_el0", "id_aa64pfr0.el0=1" },
> + { "arm64.nobbml2", "id_aa64mmfr2.bbm=0" },
> };
>
> static int __init parse_hexdigit(const char *p, u64 *v)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Thanks for the review.
I think part of this confusion is due to me not including a changelog
(definitely something for the next respin!), but the discussion this
change is based on is found here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/b46dc626-edc9-4d20-99d2-6cd08a01346c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Essentially, this is a SW feature because we do not check the
id_aa64mmfr2.bbm register as part of the has_bbml2_noabort() cpucap
matches filter. This is because certain hardware implementations
do not actually declare bbml2 via the hardware feature register, despite
implementing our bbml2_noabort feature, and certain hypervisor setups
might result in issues so we want to have an override to allow
potentially disabling the feature for generic kernels.
--
Kind regards,
Mikołaj Lenczewski
