fpsimd.h uses the __init annotation, so pull in linux/init.h

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

If there is exactly one CPU present, there is no ambiguity: do not warn
that PMU setup would need to guess IRQ affinity.

Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@ispras.ru>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

On linux-next, I get a build failure in some configurations:

drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c: In function 'arm_spe_pmu_setup_aux':
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:857:14: error: implicit declaration of function 'vmap'; did you mean 'swap'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
  buf->base = vmap(pglist, nr_pages, VM_MAP, PAGE_KERNEL);
              ^~~~
              swap
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:857:37: error: 'VM_MAP' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'VM_MPX'?
  buf->base = vmap(pglist, nr_pages, VM_MAP, PAGE_KERNEL);
                                     ^~~~~~
                                     VM_MPX
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:857:37: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c: In function 'arm_spe_pmu_free_aux':
drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c:878:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'vunmap'; did you mean 'iounmap'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]

vmap() is declared in linux/vmalloc.h, so we should include that header file.

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
[will: add additional missing #includes reported by Mark]
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

This reverts commit 1f85b42a

.

The internal dma-direct.h API has changed in -next, which collides with
us trying to use it to manage non-coherent DMA devices on systems with
unreasonably large cache writeback granules.

This isn't at all trivial to resolve, so revert our changes for now and
we can revisit this after the merge window. Effectively, this just
restores our behaviour back to that of 4.16.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

An allnoconfig build complains about unused symbols due to functions
that are called via conditional cpufeature and cpu_errata table entries.

Annotate these as __maybe_unused if they are likely to be generic, or
predicate their compilation on the same option as the table entry if
they are specific to a given alternative.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Some variants of the Arm Cortex-55 cores (r0p0, r0p1, r1p0) suffer
from an erratum 1024718, which causes incorrect updates when DBM/AP
bits in a page table entry is modified without a break-before-make
sequence. The work around is to skip enabling the hardware DBM feature
on the affected cores. The hardware Access Flag management features
is not affected. There are some other cores suffering from this
errata, which could be added to the midr_list to trigger the work
around.

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: ckadabi@codeaurora.org
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We enable hardware DBM bit in a capable CPU, very early in the
boot via __cpu_setup. This doesn't give us a flexibility of
optionally disable the feature, as the clearing the bit
is a bit costly as the TLB can cache the settings. Instead,
we delay enabling the feature until the CPU is brought up
into the kernel. We use the feature capability mechanism
to handle it.

The hardware DBM is a non-conflicting feature. i.e, the kernel
can safely run with a mix of CPUs with some using the feature
and the others don't. So, it is safe for a late CPU to have
this capability and enable it, even if the active CPUs don't.

To get this handled properly by the infrastructure, we
unconditionally set the capability and only enable it
on CPUs which really have the feature. Also, we print the
feature detection from the "matches" call back to make sure
we don't mislead the user when none of the CPUs could use the
feature.

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Update the MIDR encodings for the Cortex-A55 and Cortex-A35

Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated
actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the
same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same
capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the
cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the
detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates
other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap.

This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations
of a capability by maintaining list of matches + cpu_enable callbacks.
To avoid complicating the prototypes for the "matches()", we use
arm64_cpu_capabilities maintain the list and we ignore all the other
fields except the matches & cpu_enable.

This ensures :

 1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects
 2) Action is only taken for the entries that "matches".

This avoids explicit checks in the cpu_enable() take some action.
The only constraint here is that, all the entries should have the
same "type" (i.e, scope and conflict rules).

If a cpu_enable() method is associated with multiple matches for a
single capability, care should be taken that either the match criteria
are mutually exclusive, or that the method is robust against being
called multiple times.

This also reverts the changes introduced by commit 67948af4


("arm64: capabilities: Handle duplicate entries for a capability").

Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Add helpers for detecting an errata on list of midr ranges
of affected CPUs, with the same work around.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Add helpers for checking if the given CPU midr falls in a range
of variants/revisions for a given model.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We are about to introduce generic MIDR range helpers. Clean
up the existing helpers in erratum handling, preparing them
to use generic version.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We expect all CPUs to be running at the same EL inside the kernel
with or without VHE enabled and we have strict checks to ensure
that any mismatch triggers a kernel panic. If VHE is enabled,
we use the feature based on the boot CPU and all other CPUs
should follow. This makes it a perfect candidate for a capability
based on the boot CPU,  which should be matched by all the CPUs
(both when is ON and OFF). This saves us some not-so-pretty
hooks and special code, just for verifying the conflict.

The patch also makes the VHE capability entry depend on
CONFIG_ARM64_VHE.

Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

The kernel detects and uses some of the features based on the boot
CPU and expects that all the following CPUs conform to it. e.g,
with VHE and the boot CPU running at EL2, the kernel decides to
keep the kernel running at EL2. If another CPU is brought up without
this capability, we use custom hooks (via check_early_cpu_features())
to handle it. To handle such capabilities add support for detecting
and enabling capabilities based on the boot CPU.

A bit is added to indicate if the capability should be detected
early on the boot CPU. The infrastructure then ensures that such
capabilities are probed and "enabled" early on in the boot CPU
and, enabled on the subsequent CPUs.

Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

KPTI is treated as a system wide feature and is only detected if all
the CPUs in the sysetm needs the defense, unless it is forced via kernel
command line. This leaves a system with a mix of CPUs with and without
the defense vulnerable. Also, if a late CPU needs KPTI but KPTI was not
activated at boot time, the CPU is currently allowed to boot, which is a
potential security vulnerability.
This patch ensures that the KPTI is turned on if at least one CPU detects
the capability (i.e, change scope to SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU). Also rejetcs a late
CPU, if it requires the defense, when the system hasn't enabled it,

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Now that we have the flexibility of defining system features based
on individual CPUs, introduce CPU feature type that can be detected
on a local SCOPE and ignores the conflict on late CPUs. This is
applicable for ARM64_HAS_NO_HW_PREFETCH, where it is fine for
the system to have CPUs without hardware prefetch turning up
later. We only suffer a performance penalty, nothing fatal.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Now that the features and errata workarounds have the same
rules and flow, group the handling of the tables.

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

So far we have treated the feature capabilities as system wide
and this wouldn't help with features that could be detected locally
on one or more CPUs (e.g, KPTI, Software prefetch). This patch
splits the feature detection to two phases :

 1) Local CPU features are checked on all boot time active CPUs.
 2) System wide features are checked only once after all CPUs are
    active.

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Right now we run through the errata workarounds check on all boot
active CPUs, with SCOPE_ALL. This wouldn't help for detecting erratum
workarounds with a SYSTEM_SCOPE. There are none yet, but we plan to
introduce some: let us clean this up so that such workarounds can be
detected and enabled correctly.

So, we run the checks with SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU on all CPUs and SCOPE_SYSTEM
checks are run only once after all the boot time CPUs are active.

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We are about to group the handling of all capabilities (features
and errata workarounds). This patch open codes the wrapper routines
to make it easier to merge the handling.

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

While processing the list of capabilities, it is useful to
filter out some of the entries based on the given mask for the
scope of the capabilities to allow better control. This can be
used later for handling LOCAL vs SYSTEM wide capabilities and more.
All capabilities should have their scope set to either LOCAL_CPU or
SYSTEM. No functional/flow change.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Now that each capability describes how to treat the conflicts
of CPU cap state vs System wide cap state, we can unify the
verification logic to a single place.

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

When a CPU is brought up, it is checked against the caps that are
known to be enabled on the system (via verify_local_cpu_capabilities()).
Based on the state of the capability on the CPU vs. that of System we
could have the following combinations of conflict.

	x-----------------------------x
	| Type  | System   | Late CPU |
	|-----------------------------|
	|  a    |   y      |    n     |
	|-----------------------------|
	|  b    |   n      |    y     |
	x-----------------------------x

Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the
system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for
all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain
filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as
long as the system already enables it.

Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds that cannot be activated
after the kernel has finished booting.And we ignore (b) for features. Here,
yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we are too
late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs etc).

Add two different flags to indicate how the conflict should be handled.

 ARM64_CPUCAP_PERMITTED_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may have the capability
 ARM64_CPUCAP_OPTIONAL_FOR_LATE_CPU - CPUs may not have the cappability.

Now that we have the flags to describe the behavior of the errata and
the features, as we treat them, define types for ERRATUM and FEATURE.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We use arm64_cpu_capabilities to represent CPU ELF HWCAPs exposed
to the userspace and the CPU hwcaps used by the kernel, which
include cpu features and CPU errata work arounds. Capabilities
have some properties that decide how they should be treated :

 1) Detection, i.e scope : A cap could be "detected" either :
    - if it is present on at least one CPU (SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)
	Or
    - if it is present on all the CPUs (SCOPE_SYSTEM)

 2) When is it enabled ? - A cap is treated as "enabled" when the
  system takes some action based on whether the capability is detected or
  not. e.g, setting some control register, patching the kernel code.
  Right now, we treat all caps are enabled at boot-time, after all
  the CPUs are brought up by the kernel. But there are certain caps,
  which are enabled early during the boot (e.g, VHE, GIC_CPUIF for NMI)
  and kernel starts using them, even before the secondary CPUs are brought
  up. We would need a way to describe this for each capability.

 3) Conflict on a late CPU - When a CPU is brought up, it is checked
  against the caps that are known to be enabled on the system (via
  verify_local_cpu_capabilities()). Based on the state of the capability
  on the CPU vs. that of System we could have the following combinations
  of conflict.

	x-----------------------------x
	| Type	| System   | Late CPU |
	------------------------------|
	|  a    |   y      |    n     |
	------------------------------|
	|  b    |   n      |    y     |
	x-----------------------------x

  Case (a) is not permitted for caps which are system features, which the
  system expects all the CPUs to have (e.g VHE). While (a) is ignored for
  all errata work arounds. However, there could be exceptions to the plain
  filtering approach. e.g, KPTI is an optional feature for a late CPU as
  long as the system already enables it.

  Case (b) is not permitted for errata work arounds which requires some
  work around, which cannot be delayed. And we ignore (b) for features.
  Here, yet again, KPTI is an exception, where if a late CPU needs KPTI we
  are too late to enable it (because we change the allocation of ASIDs
  etc).

So this calls for a lot more fine grained behavior for each capability.
And if we define all the attributes to control their behavior properly,
we may be able to use a single table for the CPU hwcaps (which cover
errata and features, not the ELF HWCAPs). This is a prepartory step
to get there. More bits would be added for the properties listed above.

We are going to use a bit-mask to encode all the properties of a
capabilities. This patch encodes the "SCOPE" of the capability.

As such there is no change in how the capabilities are treated.

Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We have errata work around processing code in cpu_errata.c,
which calls back into helpers defined in cpufeature.c. Now
that we are going to make the handling of capabilities
generic, by adding the information to each capability,
move the errata work around specific processing code.
No functional changes.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We trigger CPU errata work around check on the boot CPU from
smp_prepare_boot_cpu() to make sure that we run the checks only
after the CPU feature infrastructure is initialised. While this
is correct, we can also do this from init_cpu_features() which
initilises the infrastructure, and is called only on the
Boot CPU. This helps to consolidate the CPU capability handling
to cpufeature.c. No functional changes.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

We issue the enable() call back for all CPU hwcaps capabilities
available on the system, on all the CPUs. So far we have ignored
the argument passed to the call back, which had a prototype to
accept a "void *" for use with on_each_cpu() and later with
stop_machine(). However, with commit 0a0d111d


("arm64: cpufeature: Pass capability structure to ->enable callback"),
there are some users of the argument who wants the matching capability
struct pointer where there are multiple matching criteria for a single
capability. Clean up the declaration of the call back to make it clear.

 1) Renamed to cpu_enable(), to imply taking necessary actions on the
    called CPU for the entry.
 2) Pass const pointer to the capability, to allow the call back to
    check the entry. (e.,g to check if any action is needed on the CPU)
 3) We don't care about the result of the call back, turning this to
    a void.

Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Acked-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
[suzuki: convert more users, rename call back and drop results]
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Use of SVE by EL2 and below requires explicit support in the
firmware.  There is no means to hide the presence of SVE from EL2,
so a kernel configured with CONFIG_ARM64_SVE=y will typically not
work correctly on SVE capable hardware unless the firmware does
include the appropriate support.

This is not expected to pose a problem in the wild, since platform
integrators are responsible for ensuring that they ship up-to-date
firmware to support their hardware.  However, developers may hit
the issue when using mismatched compoments.

In order to draw attention to the issue and how to solve it, this
patch adds some Kconfig text giving a brief explanation and details
of compatible firmware versions.

Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Currently a SIGFPE delivered in response to a floating-point
exception trap may have si_code set to 0 on arm64.  As reported by
Eric, this is a bad idea since this is the value of SI_USER -- yet
this signal is definitely not the result of kill(2), tgkill(2) etc.
and si_uid and si_pid make limited sense whereas we do want to
yield a value for si_addr (which doesn't exist for SI_USER).

It's not entirely clear whether the architecure permits a
"spurious" fp exception trap where none of the exception flag bits
in ESR_ELx is set.  (IMHO the architectural intent is to forbid
this.)  However, it does permit those bits to contain garbage if
the TFV bit in ESR_ELx is 0.  That case isn't currently handled at
all and may result in si_code == 0 or si_code containing a FPE_FLT*
constant corresponding to an exception that did not in fact happen.

There is nothing sensible we can return for si_code in such cases,
but SI_USER is certainly not appropriate and will lead to violation
of legitimate userspace assumptions.

This patch allocates a new si_code value FPE_UNKNOWN that at least
does not conflict with any existing SI_* or FPE_* code, and yields
this in si_code for undiagnosable cases.  This is probably the best
simplicity/incorrectness tradeoff achieveable without relying on
implementation-dependent features or adding a lot of code.  In any
case, there appears to be no perfect solution possible that would
justify a lot of effort here.

Yielding FPE_UNKNOWN when some well-defined fp exception caused the
trap is a violation of POSIX, but this is forced by the
architecture.  We have no realistic prospect of yielding the
correct code in such cases.  At present I am not aware of any ARMv8
implementation that supports trapped floating-point exceptions in
any case.

The new code may be applicable to other architectures for similar
reasons.

No attempt is made to provide ESR_ELx to userspace in the signal
frame, since architectural limitations mean that it is unlikely to
provide much diagnostic value, doesn't benefit existing software
and would create ABI with no proven purpose.  The existing
mechanism for passing it also has problems of its own which may
result in the wrong value being passed to userspace due to
interaction with mm faults.  The implied rework does not appear
justified.

Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Reported-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Merge branch 'siginfo-next' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace into aarch64/for-next/core

Pull in pending siginfo changes from Eric Biederman as we depend on
the definition of FPE_FLTUNK for cleaning up our floating-point exception
signal delivery (which is currently broken and using FPE_FIXME).

Expose the new features introduced by Arm v8.4 extensions to
Arm v8-A profile.

These include :

 1) Data indpendent timing of instructions. (DIT, exposed as HWCAP_DIT)
 2) Unaligned atomic instructions and Single-copy atomicity of loads
    and stores. (AT, expose as HWCAP_USCAT)
 3) LDAPR and STLR instructions with immediate offsets (extension to
    LRCPC, exposed as HWCAP_ILRCPC)
 4) Flag manipulation instructions (TS, exposed as HWCAP_FLAGM).

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Remove the invisible RES0 field entries from the table, listing
fields in CPU ID feature registers, as :
 1) We are only interested in the user visible fields.
 2) The field description may not be up-to-date, as the
    field could be assigned a new meaning.
 3) We already explain the rules of the fields which are not
    visible.

Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Now that we started keeping modules within 4 GB of the core kernel
in all cases, we no longer need to special case the adr_l/ldr_l/str_l
macros for modules to deal with them being loaded farther away.

Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

The printk symbol was intended as a generic address that is always
exported, however that turned out to be false with CONFIG_PRINTK=n:

ERROR: "printk" [arch/arm64/kernel/arm64-reloc-test.ko] undefined!

This changes the references to memstart_addr, which should be there
regardless of configuration.

Fixes: a257e025

 ("arm64/kernel: don't ban ADRP to work around Cortex-A53 erratum #843419")
Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Some architectures cannot always report accurately what kind of
floating-point exception triggered a floating-point exception trap.

This can occur with fp exceptions occurring on lanes in a vector
instruction on arm64 for example.

Rather than have every architecture come up with its own way of
describing such a condition, this patch adds a common FPE_FLTUNK
si_code value to report that an fp exception caused a trap but we
cannot be certain which kind of fp exception it was.

Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>

Merge tag 'acpi/iort-for-v4.17' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lpieralisi/linux into aarch64/for-next/core

Three ACPI IORT clean-up patches aimed at v4.17 release cycle:

- Removal of IORT linker script entry re-introduced by mistake by clocksource
  drivers refactoring (J.He)
- Two ACPICA guards removal of previously introduced guards to prevent
  ACPICA<->kernel patches dependencies (L.Pieralisi)

Currently, as reported by Eric, an invalid si_code value 0 is
passed in many signals delivered to userspace in response to faults
and other kernel errors.  Typically 0 is passed when the fault is
insufficiently diagnosable or when there does not appear to be any
sensible alternative value to choose.

This appears to violate POSIX, and is intuitively wrong for at
least two reasons arising from the fact that 0 == SI_USER:

 1) si_code is a union selector, and SI_USER (and si_code <= 0 in
    general) implies the existence of a different set of fields
    (siginfo._kill) from that which exists for a fault signal
    (siginfo._sigfault).  However, the code raising the signal
    typically writes only the _sigfault fields, and the _kill
    fields make no sense in this case.

    Thus when userspace sees si_code == 0 (SI_USER) it may
    legitimately inspect fields in the inactive union member _kill
    and obtain garbage as a result.

    There appears to be software in the wild relying on this,
    albeit generally only for printing diagnostic messages.

 2) Software that wants to be robust against spurious signals may
    discard signals where si_code == SI_USER (or <= 0), or may
    filter such signals based on the si_uid and si_pid fields of
    siginfo._sigkill.  In the case of fault signals, this means
    that important (and usually fatal) error conditions may be
    silently ignored.

In practice, many of the faults for which arm64 passes si_code == 0
are undiagnosable conditions such as exceptions with syndrome
values in ESR_ELx to which the architecture does not yet assign any
meaning, or conditions indicative of a bug or error in the kernel
or system and thus that are unrecoverable and should never occur in
normal operation.

The approach taken in this patch is to translate all such
undiagnosable or "impossible" synchronous fault conditions to
SIGKILL, since these are at least probably localisable to a single
process.  Some of these conditions should really result in a kernel
panic, but due to the lack of diagnostic information it is
difficult to be certain: this patch does not add any calls to
panic(), but this could change later if justified.

Although si_code will not reach userspace in the case of SIGKILL,
it is still desirable to pass a nonzero value so that the common
siginfo handling code can detect incorrect use of si_code == 0
without false positives.  In this case the si_code dependent
siginfo fields will not be correctly initialised, but since they
are not passed to userspace I deem this not to matter.

A few faults can reasonably occur in realistic userspace scenarios,
and _should_ raise a regular, handleable (but perhaps not
ignorable/blockable) signal: for these, this patch attempts to
choose a suitable standard si_code value for the raised signal in
each case instead of 0.

arm64 was the only arch to define a BUS_FIXME code, so after this
patch nobody defines it.  This patch therefore also removes the
relevant code from siginfo_layout().

Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Reported-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

The DCache clean & ICache invalidation requirements for instructions
to be data coherence are discoverable through new fields in CTR_EL0.
The following two control bits DIC and IDC were defined for this
purpose. No need to perform point of unification cache maintenance
operations from software on systems where CPU caches are transparent.

This patch optimize the three functions __flush_cache_user_range(),
clean_dcache_area_pou() and invalidate_icache_range() if the hardware
reports CTR_EL0.IDC and/or CTR_EL0.IDC. Basically it skips the two
instructions 'DC CVAU' and 'IC IVAU', and the associated loop logic
in order to avoid the unnecessary overhead.

CTR_EL0.DIC: Instruction cache invalidation requirements for
 instruction to data coherence. The meaning of this bit[29].
  0: Instruction cache invalidation to the point of unification
     is required for instruction to data coherence.
  1: Instruction cache cleaning to the point of unification is
      not required for instruction to data coherence.

CTR_EL0.IDC: Data cache clean requirements for instruction to data
 coherence. The meaning of this bit[28].
  0: Data cache clean to the point of unification is required for
     instruction to data coherence, unless CLIDR_EL1.LoC == 0b000
     or (CLIDR_EL1.LoUIS == 0b000 && CLIDR_EL1.LoUU == 0b000).
  1: Data cache clean to the point of unification is not required
     for instruction to data coherence.

Co-authored-by: Philip Elcan <pelcan@codeaurora.org>
Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Omit patching of ADRP instruction at module load time if the current
CPUs are not susceptible to the erratum.

Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
[will: Drop duplicate initialisation of .def_scope field]
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

In some cases, core variants that are affected by a certain erratum
also exist in versions that have the erratum fixed, and this fact is
recorded in a dedicated bit in system register REVIDR_EL1.

Since the architecture does not require that a certain bit retains
its meaning across different variants of the same model, each such
REVIDR bit is tightly coupled to a certain revision/variant value,
and so we need a list of revidr_mask/midr pairs to carry this
information.

So add the struct member and the associated macros and handling to
allow REVIDR fixes to be taken into account.

Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>