Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: cpufeature: Change 32-bit EL0 to display enabled cores

[Robin Murphy]

On 2023-10-18 16:42, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 10/18/23 07:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 20:15:43 +0100,
> > Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 10/17/23 13:01, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 06:23:22 +0100,
> > > > Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > Now that we have the ability to display the list of cores
> > > > > with a feature when it is selectivly enabled, lets display the
> > > > > cores enabled for 32-bit use at EL0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > > >    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c 
> > > > > b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > index b7b67bac0e60..512cbe446b41 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > @@ -1533,8 +1533,17 @@ static bool has_32bit_el0(const struct 
> > > > > arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
> > > > >        if (!has_cpuid_feature(entry, scope))
> > > > >            return allow_mismatched_32bit_el0;
> > > > >    -    if (scope == SCOPE_SYSTEM)
> > > > > -        pr_info("detected: 32-bit EL0 Support\n");
> > > > > +    if (scope == SCOPE_SYSTEM) {
> > > > > +        struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *has_32bit;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +        has_32bit = (struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *)entry;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +        has_32bit->cpus = system_32bit_el0_cpumask();
> > > >
> > > > This seems rather dodgy. 'entry' comes from a static const array which
> > > > will, in all likelihood be mapped R/O pretty soon after the initial
> > > > CPU bringup. Try offlining/onlining a CPU and you should see a
> > > > firework similar to what I have below (I hacked the CnP property, but
> > > > that's no different from what you are doing):
> > >
> > > Yes, dodgy is a good word. The other choices, maintain a mask just for
> > > the print or dump the static key and always use the cpu_32bit_el0_mask
> > > or some combination, weren't much better in the "ick" category. If
> > > anyone sees a better way I'm open to suggestion, although simply
> > > dropping this last patch is fine too.
> >
> > An obvious choice would be to replace the 'cpus' cpumask with a
> > function that evaluates a cpumask stored separately.
>
> Right, I was too busy trying to cleanup the 32-bit mask, that works too.

But if a cpumask does already exist, wouldn't the *most* logical thing 
be to use it? If it is somehow harmful to the existing machinery to set 
all of the CPUs in cpu_32bit_el0_mask if all of the CPUs support 32-bit 
EL0, that seems like a mind-bogglingly dumb design which deserves fixing 
in its own right.

To me the obvious thing would be to allocate and populate 
cpu_32bit_el0_mask unconditionally so the initial feature detection can 
work as normal, and then if anyone's really really bothered, free it 
again later if we determine there's no mismatch.

Thanks,
Robin.