Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190730044326.1805-1-luaraneda@gmail.com> <20190730104746.GA1330@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20190730104746.GA1330@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
From:   Luis Araneda <luaraneda@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:12:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbBuxoMBiq23Rkt7-jm42O4ePY=23ZsgNEVf3UJKQ2Dg+3fbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: zynq: Use memcpy_toio instead of memcpy on smp bring-up
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Russell,

Thanks for reviewing.

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 6:47 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:43:26AM -0400, Luis Araneda wrote:
> > This fixes a kernel panic (read overflow) on memcpy when
> > FORTIFY_SOURCE is enabled.
[...]
>
> I'm not convinced that this is correct.  It looks like
> zynq_secondary_trampoline could be either ARM or Thumb code - there is
> no .arm directive before it.  If it's ARM code, then this is fine.  If
> Thumb code, then zynq_secondary_trampoline will be offset by one, and
> we will miss copying the first byte of code.

You're right, I tested what happens if the zynq_secondary_trampoline
is ARM or Thumb by editing the file where it's defined, headsmp.S

When the .arm directive is used, the CPU is brought-up correctly,
but if I use .thumb, I get the following message (no panic):
> CPU1: failed to come online

This seems unrelated to solving the panic, as the message
even appears with memcpy and FORTIFY_SOURCE disabled.

I could add the .arm directive to headsmp.S
Is that your expected solution?
Should that change be on a separate commit?

I'd like to know Michal's opinion, as he wrote the code.