On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 02:19:51PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:54:06AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > On 12/09/18 20:38, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 10:10:09AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > > > commit 4c4a39dd5fe2d13e2d2fa5fceb8ef95d19fc389a upstream
> > > >
> > > > If there is a mismatch in the I/D min line size, we must
> > > > always use the system wide safe value both in applications
> > > > and in the kernel, while performing cache operations. However,
> > > > we have been checking more bits than just the min line sizes,
> > > > which triggers false negatives. We may need to trap the user
> > > > accesses in such cases, but not necessarily patch the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > This patch fixes the check to do the right thing as advertised.
> > > > A new capability will be added to check mismatches in other
> > > > fields and ensure we trap the CTR accesses.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: be68a8aaf925 ("arm64: cpufeature: Fix CTR_EL0 field definitions")
> > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.9
> > >
> > > Why 4.9? be68a8aaf925 only showed up in 4.16 and was backported only to
> > > 4.14-stable. Not to 4.9-stable from what I can tell.
> >
> > Now when you asked this, I realise that the Fixes tags were not sufficient.
> >
> > Actually this series fixes a bit more than the commit: be68a8aaf925 ("arm64: cpufeature:
> > Fix CTR_EL0 field definitions"). I think these patches should have :
> >
> > Fixes: commit 116c81f427ff6c5 ("arm64: Work around systems with mismatched cache line sizes")
> >
> > and
> >
> > Enable trapping on mismatched bits in CTR for IDC/DIC, which were
> > added to v8.3 onwards.
> >
> > Essentially these patches makes sure that we trap accesses to
> > CTR_EL0 when some of the fields are mismatched across CPUs, so
> > that the CPUs get a consistent view of the cache properties
> > throughout the system. It also makes sure that we put out
> > correct information about why we trap accesses to the CTR_EL0
> > accesses from the userspace.
> >
> > Hope this helps. The same applies for the next patch.
>
> Yes, it does help. But these patches do not apply to the 4.14.y series,
> which I also need to apply them to (you don't want to move from 4.9.y to
> 4.14.y and get a regression.)
>
> So can you provide backports for both of these patches for 4.14.y? Then
> I would be glad to queue these all up.
Oh nevermind, I found those patches in my queue, you already sent them!
sorry for the noise.
greg k-h
