Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Mohamed Mediouni <mohamed.mediouni@caramail.com>,
        Stan Skowronek <stan@corellium.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
References: <20210215121713.57687-1-marcan@marcan.st>
 <20210215121713.57687-9-marcan@marcan.st>
 <20210217122200.GC5556@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
 <e88fa913-e2ae-35d0-056f-2a5079babbc2@marcan.st>
 <20210218142205.GB89209@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
From:   Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/25] arm64: Always keep DAIF.[IF] in sync
Message-ID: <e66a9d0d-1127-c755-8bd7-7deedca1f3f3@marcan.st>
Date:   Thu, 18 Feb 2021 23:42:01 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210218142205.GB89209@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: es-ES
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/02/2021 23.22, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I think that for consistency we always want to keep IRQ and FIQ in-sync,
> even when using GIC priorities. So when handling a pseudo-NMI we should
> unmask DAIF.DA and leave DAIF.IF masked.

In that case there's one more, in daifflags.h:local_daif_restore():

			/*
			 * If interrupts are disabled but we can take
			 * asynchronous errors, we can take NMIs
			 */
			flags &= PSR_I_BIT;
			pmr = GIC_PRIO_IRQOFF;

>> And a minor related one: should init_gic_priority_masking() WARN if FIQ is
>> masked too? This probably goes with the above.
> 
> I think it should, yes.

Done for v3 then. Thanks!

-- 
Hector Martin (marcan@marcan.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub