Currently we advertise the ID_AA6DFR0_EL1.TRACEVER for the guest,
when the trace register accesses are trapped (CPTR_EL2.TTA == 1).
So, the guest will get an undefined instruction, if trusts the
ID registers and access one of the trace registers.
Lets be nice to the guest and hide the feature to avoid
unexpected behavior.

Even though this can be done at KVM sysreg emulation layer,
we do this by removing the TRACEVER from the sanitised feature
register field. This is fine as long as the ETM drivers
can handle the individual trace units separately, even
when there are differences among the CPUs.

Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
--
Note: Marc has indicated that he will be picking this patch
I have included in the series for ease of testing.
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 066030717a4c..a4698f09bf32 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c

@@ -383,7 +383,6 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
 	 * of support.
 	 */
 	S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_EXACT, ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_SHIFT, 4, 0),
-	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_EXACT, ID_AA64DFR0_TRACEVER_SHIFT, 4, 0),
 	ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_EXACT, ID_AA64DFR0_DEBUGVER_SHIFT, 4, 0x6),
 	ARM64_FTR_END,
 };

-- 
2.24.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel