Include R-Car Gen1 product names for Bock-W and Marzen.
The product names are taken from:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/shmobile.txt
Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
Improve the user friendliness of the DTS code base by including the
R-Car product name in each R-Car Gen2 DTSI file.
The product names are taken from:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/shmobile.txt
Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
This adds the system controller node for CPU Miscellaneous Registers
(which is needed for the watchdog node) and the watchdog node.
Signed-off-by: Marek Behún <marek.behun@nic.cz>
Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>
Pass the signal number, and the signal code, and the faulting
address into uc32_notify_die so the callers do not need
to generate a struct siginfo.
In ucs32_ntoify_die use the newly passed in information to
call force_sig_fault to generate the siginfo and send the error.
This simplifies the code making the chances of bugs much less likely.
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Pass signr, sicode, and address into unhandled_exception as explicit
parameters instead of members of struct siginfo. Then in unhandled
exception generate and send the siginfo using force_sig_fault.
This keeps the code simpler and less error prone.
Acked-by: Vineet Gupta <vgupta@synopsys.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
The ia64 handling of failure to return from a signal frame has been trying
to set overlapping fields in struct siginfo since 2.3.43. The si_code
corresponds to the fields that were stomped (not the field that is
actually written), so I can not imagine a piece of userspace code
making sense of the signal frame if it looks closely.
In practice failure to return from a signal frame is a rare event that
almost never happens. Someone using an alternate signal stack to
recover and looking in detail is even more rare. So I presume no one
has ever noticed and reported this ia64 nonsense.
Sort this out by causing ia64 to use force_sig(SIGSEGV) like other architectures.
Fixes: 2.3.43
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
The ia64 handling of failure to setup a signal frame has been trying
to set overlapping fields in struct siginfo since 2.3.43. The si_pid
and si_uid fields are stomped when the si_addr field is set. The
si_code of SI_KERNEL indicates that si_pid and si_uid should be valid,
and that si_addr does not exist.
Being at odds with the definition of SI_KERNEL and with nothing to
indicate that this was a signal frame setup failure there is no way
for userspace to know that si_addr was filled out instead.
In practice failure to setup a signal frame is rare, and si_pid and
si_uid are always set to 0 when si_code is SI_KERNEL so I expect no
one has looked closely enough before to see this weirdness. Further
the only difference between force_sigsegv_info and the generic
force_sigsegv other than the return code is that force_sigsegv_info
stomps the si_uid and si_pid fields.
Remove the bug and simplify the code by using force_sigsegv in this
case just like other architectures.
Fixes: 2.3.43
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Acked-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
In arm_notify_die call force_sig_fault to let the generic
code handle siginfo generation.
This removes some boiler plate making the code easier to
maintain in the long run.
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Add arm64_force_sig_ptrace_errno_trap for consistency with
arm64_force_sig_fault and use it where appropriate.
This adds the show_signal logic to the force_sig_errno_trap case,
where it was apparently overlooked earlier.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Add arm64_force_sig_mceerr for consistency with arm64_force_sig_fault,
and use it in the one location that can take advantage of it.
This removes the fiddly filling out of siginfo before sending a signal
reporting an memory error to userspace.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Wrap force_sig_fault with a helper that calls arm64_show_signal
and call arm64_force_sig_fault where appropraite.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
As this work is truly common between all of the signal sending cases
there is no need to repeat it between the different cases.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Not all of the signals passed to __do_user_fault can be handled
the same way so expand the now tiny __do_user_fault in it's callers
and remove it.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
It gets easy to confuse what is going on when some code is shared and some not
so stop sharing the trivial bits of signal generation to make future updates
easier to understand.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
These two cases are practically the same and use siginfo differently
from the other signals sent from do_page_fault. So consolidate them
to make future changes easier.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Filling in siginfo is error prone and so it is wise to use more
specialized helpers to do that work. Factor out the arm specific
unhandled signal reporting from the work of delivering a signal so
the code can be modified to use functions that take the information
to fill out siginfo as parameters.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Every caller passes in current for tsk so there is no need to pass
tsk. Instead make tsk a local variable initialized to current.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Instead of generating a struct siginfo before calling arm64_notify_die
pass the signal number, tne sicode and the fault address into
arm64_notify_die and have it call force_sig_fault instead of
force_sig_info to let the generic code generate the struct siginfo.
This keeps code passing just the needed information into
siginfo generating code, making it easier to see what
is happening and harder to get wrong. Further by letting
the generic code handle the generation of struct siginfo
it reduces the number of sites generating struct siginfo
making it possible to review them and verify that all
of the fiddly details for a structure passed to userspace
are handled properly.
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Tested-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
The extra loop which tries hard to preserve large pages in case of conflicts
with static protection regions turns out to be not preserving anything, at
least not in the experiments which have been conducted.
There might be corner cases in which the code would be able to preserve a
large page oaccsionally, but it's really not worth the extra code and the
cycles wasted in the common case.
Before:
1G pages checked: 2
1G pages sameprot: 0
1G pages preserved: 0
2M pages checked: 541
2M pages sameprot: 466
2M pages preserved: 47
4K pages checked: 514
4K pages set-checked: 7668
After:
1G pages checked: 2
1G pages sameprot: 0
1G pages preserved: 0
2M pages checked: 538
2M pages sameprot: 466
2M pages preserved: 47
4K pages set-checked: 7668
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bin Yang <bin.yang@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Gross <mark.gross@intel.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180917143546.589642503@linutronix.de
To avoid excessive 4k wise checks in the common case do a quick check first
whether the requested new page protections conflict with a static
protection area in the large page. If there is no conflict then the
decision whether to preserve or to split the page can be made immediately.
If the requested range covers the full large page, preserve it. Otherwise
split it up. No point in doing a slow crawl in 4k steps.
Before:
1G pages checked: 2
1G pages sameprot: 0
1G pages preserved: 0
2M pages checked: 538
2M pages sameprot: 466
2M pages preserved: 47
4K pages checked: 560642
4K pages set-checked: 7668
After:
1G pages checked: 2
1G pages sameprot: 0
1G pages preserved: 0
2M pages checked: 541
2M pages sameprot: 466
2M pages preserved: 47
4K pages checked: 514
4K pages set-checked: 7668
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bin Yang <bin.yang@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Gross <mark.gross@intel.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180917143546.507259989@linutronix.de
When the existing mapping is correct and the new requested page protections
are the same as the existing ones, then further checks can be omitted and the
large page can be preserved. The slow path 4k wise check will not come up with
a different result.
Before:
1G pages checked: 2
1G pages sameprot: 0
1G pages preserved: 0
2M pages checked: 540
2M pages sameprot: 466
2M pages preserved: 47
4K pages checked: 800709
4K pages set-checked: 7668
After:
1G pages checked: 2
1G pages sameprot: 0
1G pages preserved: 0
2M pages checked: 538
2M pages sameprot: 466
2M pages preserved: 47
4K pages checked: 560642
4K pages set-checked: 7668
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bin Yang <bin.yang@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Gross <mark.gross@intel.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180917143546.424477581@linutronix.de
With the range check it is possible to do a quick verification that the
current mapping is correct vs. the static protection areas.
In case a incorrect mapping is detected a warning is emitted and the large
page is split up. If the large page is a 2M page, then the split code is
forced to check the static protections for the PTE entries to fix up the
incorrectness. For 1G pages this can't be done easily because that would
require to either find the offending 2M areas before the split or
afterwards. For now just warn about that case and revisit it when reported.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bin Yang <bin.yang@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Gross <mark.gross@intel.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180917143546.331408643@linutronix.de
The large page preservation mechanism is just magic and provides no
information at all. Add optional statistic output in debugfs so the magic can
be evaluated. Defaults is off.
Output:
1G pages checked: 2
1G pages sameprot: 0
1G pages preserved: 0
2M pages checked: 540
2M pages sameprot: 466
2M pages preserved: 47
4K pages checked: 800770
4K pages set-checked: 7668
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bin Yang <bin.yang@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Gross <mark.gross@intel.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180917143546.160867778@linutronix.de
The whole static protection magic is silently fixing up anything which is
handed in. That's just wrong. The offending call sites need to be fixed.
Add a debug mechanism which emits a warning if a requested mapping needs to be
fixed up. The DETECT debug mechanism is really not meant to be enabled except
for developers, so limit the output hard to the protection fixups.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Bin Yang <bin.yang@intel.com>
Cc: Mark Gross <mark.gross@intel.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180917143546.078998733@linutronix.de
