On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 08:51:15AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 09:54:41AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The second argument is the end "pointer", not the length.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c
index 8e9c924423b4e..a0b144cfaea71 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/machine_kexec.c
@@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ void machine_kexec(struct kimage *kimage)
* the offline CPUs. Therefore, we must use the __* variant here.
*/
__flush_icache_range((uintptr_t)reboot_code_buffer,
+ (uintptr_t)reboot_code_buffer +
arm64_relocate_new_kernel_size);
Urgh, well spotted. It's annoyingly different from __flush_dcache_area().
But now I'm wondering what this code actually does... the loop condition
in invalidate_icache_by_line works with 64-bit arithmetic, so we could
spend a /very/ long time here afaict.
I think it goes through the loop only once. The 'b.lo' saves us here.
OTOH, there is no I-cache maintenance done.
It's also a bit annoying that we do a bunch of redundant D-cache
maintenance too. Should we use invalidate_icache_range() here instead?
Since we have the __flush_dcache_area() above it for cleaning to PoC, we
could use invalidate_icache_range() here. We probably didn't have this
function at the time, it was added for KVM (commit 4fee94736603cd6).
(and why does that thing need to toggle uaccess)?
invalidate_icache_range() doesn't need to, it works on the kernel linear
map.
__flush_icache_range() doesn't need to either, that's a side-effect of
the fall-through implementation.
Anyway, I think Christoph's patch needs to go in with a fixes tag:
Fixes: d28f6df1305a ("arm64/kexec: Add core kexec support")
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.8.x-
and we'll change these functions/helpers going forward for arm64.
Happy to pick this up via the arm64 for-next/fixes branch.
--
Catalin
