Hi Sricharan,
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:57:25 +0530, Sricharan R r.sricharan@ti.com wrote:
Hi Albert,
On Thursday 28 February 2013 08:35 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:20:44 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.net wrote:
(sorry for any duplicate of this mail)
Hi R Sricharan,
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 23:38:22 +0530, R Sricharanr.sricharan@ti.com wrote:
Currently for ARM based cpu's, mmu pagetable attributes are set with manager permissions for all 4GB address space. Because of this the 'execute never (XN)' permission is never checked on read sensitive regions which results in speculative aborts.
This series changes the domain permissions of the full 4GB space to client access for OMAP socs. This avoids all the speculative aborts that are currently seen on OMAP5 secure devices.
Tested on OMAP5 SDP (HS) soc.
This series depends on [1] the patch sent by <Vincent Stehlev-stehle@ti.com
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg102709.html
R Sricharan (2): ARM: mmu: Introduce weak dram_bank_setup function ARM: mmu: Set domain permissions to client access
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/cache_v7.c | 3 ++ arch/arm/cpu/armv7/omap-common/hwinit-common.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/include/asm/cache.h | 1 + arch/arm/include/asm/system.h | 14 ++++++++++ arch/arm/lib/cache-cp15.c | 13 ++++++++- 5 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Series applied to u-boot-arm/master, thanks!
Correction: I'd wrongly inferred from the testing done on OMAP5 that the series would build fine. However it appears that for targets omap4_sdp4430, omap4_panda and omap5_evm, patch 2/2 has warnings:
hwinit-common.c: In function 'dram_bank_mmu_setup': hwinit-common.c:279:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'set_section_dcache' [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
Luckily, I had not committed to the git repo yet.
R Sicharan, can you please check and fix this warning?
Amicalement,
Oh, thats because as i mentioned above, it depends on the below patch from vincent .
http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg102709.html
I did not repost it though. I will do it now for clarity.
Ok -- Vincent's patch was not in my Patchwork TODO and I had read patches 1/2 and 2/2 in Patchwork, but I had not read the cover letter thoroughly enough so I had missed the dependency.
(Cc:ing Vincent and Tom)
Vincent's patch series is delegated to Tom and marked "superseded" in Patchwork but I don't see any later, superseding, series. What can/should I make of it?
Regards, Sricharan
Amicalement,