[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b4cf83d2-ae05-3362-bc23-2341d00516dc@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:29:22 -0500
From: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
shankerd@...eaurora.org, timur@...eaurora.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Neil Leeder <nleeder@...eaurora.org>,
Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003
On 01/31/2017 12:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 31/01/17 17:48, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> On 01/31/2017 07:37 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>>>> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
>>>> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
>>>> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
>>>> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
>>>> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
>>>> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
>>>> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
>>>> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
>>>> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
>>>> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
>>>> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.
>>>>
>>>> Consider the following pseudo code.
>>>>
>>>> write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1
>>>>
>>>> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
>>>> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.
>>>>
>>>> write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>>> ISB
>>>> write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
>>>> ISB
>>>> write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>>>> ISB
>>>>
>>>> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
>>>> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
>>>> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
>>>> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.
>>>
>>> Based on my understanding that entries allocated to the reserved ASID
>>> will not be used for subsequent page table walks (and so we don't have
>>> asynchronous behaviour to contend with), this sounds fine to me.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time to clarify the details on that.
>>>
>>>> Based on work by Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> Documentation/arm64/silicon-errata.txt | 1 +
>>>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 11 +++++++++++
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpucaps.h | 3 ++-
>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 8 +++++++-
>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpu_errata.c | 7 +++++++
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/context.c | 11 +++++++++++
>>>> arch/arm64/mm/proc.S | 1 +
>>>> 8 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Don't we need to use pre_ttbr0_update_workaround in <asm/asm-uaccess.h>
>>> for CONFIG_ARM64_SW_TTBR0_PAN? We implicitly switch to the reserved ASID
>>> for the empty table in __uaccess_ttbr0_disable.
>>>
>>> That also means we have to invalidate the reserved ASID so as to not
>>> accidentally hit while uaccess is disabled.
>>
>> The CPU in question (Falkor v1) has hardware PAN support. Do we need
>> to worry about including the workaround in the SW PAN code in that case?
>
> Given that all ARMv8 CPUs can support SW_PAN, it is more likely to be
> enabled than the ARMv8.1 PAN. I'd vote for supporting the workaround in
> that case too, and hope that people do enable the HW version.
Okay, I'll do my best to add support for the SW PAN case. I rebased and
submitted v6 of the E1009 patch [1] so that it no longer depends on this
patch landing first, if you all are inclined to pick it up while work on
this E1003 patch continues.
1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9547923/
Thanks,
Christopher
--
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists