linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] arm64: tlb: Add DSB ISHST prior to TLBI in __flush_tlb_[kernel

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 19:56:09 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benh@....ibm.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/11] arm64: tlb: Add DSB ISHST prior to TLBI in
 __flush_tlb_[kernel_]pgtable()

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 04:52:37PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> __flush_tlb_[kernel_]pgtable() rely on set_pXd() having a DSB after
> writing the new table entry and therefore avoid the barrier prior to the
> TLBI instruction.
> 
> In preparation for delaying our walk-cache invalidation on the unmap()
> path, move the DSB into the TLB invalidation routines.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index 7e2a35424ca4..e257f8655b84 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_pgtable(struct mm_struct *mm,
>  {
>  	unsigned long addr = __TLBI_VADDR(uaddr, ASID(mm));
>  
> +	dsb(ishst);
>  	__tlbi(vae1is, addr);
>  	__tlbi_user(vae1is, addr);
>  	dsb(ish);
> @@ -222,6 +223,7 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_kernel_pgtable(unsigned long kaddr)
>  {
>  	unsigned long addr = __TLBI_VADDR(kaddr, 0);
>  
> +	dsb(ishst);
>  	__tlbi(vaae1is, addr);
>  	dsb(ish);
>  }

I would suggest these barrier -- like any other barriers, carry a
comment that explain the required ordering.

I think this here reads like:

	STORE: unhook page

	DSB-ishst: wait for all stores to complete
	TLBI: invalidate broadcast
	DSB-ish: wait for TLBI to complete

And the 'newly' placed DSB-ishst ensures the page is observed unlinked
before we issue the invalidate.