Re: [PATCH 5/6] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applcations in sysfs
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: 2020-10-28 08:38:16
Also in:
linux-arch
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:51:17PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Since 32-bit applications will be killed if they are caught trying to execute on a 64-bit-only CPU in a mismatched system, advertise the set of 32-bit capable CPUs to userspace in sysfs. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> --- .../ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 8 ++++++++ arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu index b555df825447..19893fb8e870 100644 --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu@@ -472,6 +472,14 @@ Description: AArch64 CPU registers 'identification' directory exposes the CPU ID registers for identifying model and revision of the CPU. +What: /sys/devices/system/cpu/aarch32_el0 +Date: October 2020 +Contact: Linux ARM Kernel Mailing list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> +Description: Identifies the subset of CPUs in the system that can execute + AArch32 (32-bit ARM) applications. If absent, then all or none + of the CPUs can execute AArch32 applications and execve() will + behave accordingly.
How is this value represented? A hint here would be nice.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ What: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu#/cpu_capacity Date: December 2016 Contact: Linux kernel mailing list [off-list ref]diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c index 2e2219cbd54c..9f29d4d1ef7e 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ #include <linux/crash_dump.h> #include <linux/sort.h> #include <linux/stop_machine.h> +#include <linux/sysfs.h> #include <linux/types.h> #include <linux/mm.h> #include <linux/cpu.h>@@ -1236,6 +1237,24 @@ bool system_has_mismatched_32bit_el0(void) return fld == ID_AA64PFR0_EL0_64BIT_ONLY; } +static ssize_t aarch32_el0_show(struct kobject *kobj, + struct kobj_attribute *attr, char *buf) +{ + const struct cpumask *mask = system_32bit_el0_cpumask(); + return sprintf(buf, "%*pbl\n", cpumask_pr_args(mask));
sysfs_emit()? And a blank line to make checkpatch.pl happy :)
+} +static const struct kobj_attribute aarch32_el0_attr = __ATTR_RO(aarch32_el0);
DEVICE_ATTR_RO()?
+
+static int __init aarch32_el0_sysfs_init(void)
+{
+ if (!__allow_mismatched_32bit_el0)
+ return 0;
+
+ return sysfs_create_file(&cpu_subsys.dev_root->kobj,
+ &aarch32_el0_attr.attr);device_create_file() please, dev_root is a struct device, no need to "thunk" down to a "raw" sysfs call. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel