On Tue, 29 Dec 2020 16:00:59 +, David Brazdil wrote:
> The KVM/arm64 PSCI relay assumes that SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET should
> not return, as dictated by the PSCI spec. However, there is firmware out
> there which breaks this assumption, leading to a hyp panic. Make KVM
> more robust to brok
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 05:16:41PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 2020-12-29 16:00, David Brazdil wrote:
> > The KVM/arm64 PSCI relay assumes that SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET should
> > not return, as dictated by the PSCI spec. However, there is firmware out
> > there which breaks t
On 2020-12-29 17:04, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 04:00:59PM +, David Brazdil wrote:
The KVM/arm64 PSCI relay assumes that SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET
should
not return, as dictated by the PSCI spec. However, there is firmware
out
there which breaks this as
Hi David,
On 2020-12-29 16:00, David Brazdil wrote:
The KVM/arm64 PSCI relay assumes that SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET
should
not return, as dictated by the PSCI spec. However, there is firmware
out
there which breaks this assumption, leading to a hyp panic. Make KVM
more robust to broken firmw
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 04:00:59PM +, David Brazdil wrote:
> The KVM/arm64 PSCI relay assumes that SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET should
> not return, as dictated by the PSCI spec. However, there is firmware out
> there which breaks this assumption, leading to a hyp panic. Make KVM
> more robust t
The KVM/arm64 PSCI relay assumes that SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET should
not return, as dictated by the PSCI spec. However, there is firmware out
there which breaks this assumption, leading to a hyp panic. Make KVM
more robust to broken firmware by allowing these to return.
Signed-off-by: David Br
6 matches
Mail list logo
