[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPnIIAARHNhx9npt@elver.google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:33:52 +0200
From: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com" <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
"suzuki.poulose@....com" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
"jean-philippe@...aro.org" <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
"Alexandru.Elisei@....com" <Alexandru.Elisei@....com>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] kvm/arm: Align the VMID allocation with the arm64
ASID one
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:11AM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 22 Jul 2021 at 06:45:14 (+0000), Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
> > > From: Will Deacon [mailto:will@...nel.org]
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > > b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > > > index 4b60c0056c04..a02c4877a055 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/mem_protect.c
> > > > @@ -106,8 +106,7 @@ int kvm_host_prepare_stage2(void *mem_pgt_pool,
> > > void *dev_pgt_pool)
> > > > mmu->pgd_phys = __hyp_pa(host_kvm.pgt.pgd);
> > > > mmu->arch = &host_kvm.arch;
> > > > mmu->pgt = &host_kvm.pgt;
> > > > - mmu->vmid.vmid_gen = 0;
> > > > - mmu->vmid.vmid = 0;
> > > > + atomic64_set(&mmu->vmid.id, 0);
> > >
> > > I think this is the first atomic64 use in the EL2 object, which may pull in
> > > some fatal KCSAN instrumentation. Quentin, have you run into this before?
> > >
> > > Might be simple just to zero-initialise mmu for now, if it isn't already.
> >
> > I will check that.
>
> Yes I think what saves us here is that, AFAICT. arm64 doesn't support
> KCSAN yet. But the day it does, this should fail to link (hopefully)
> because of out-of-line calls into e.g. __kasan_check_write().
>
> So yes, a simple zeroing here is probably preferable.
Note: Do not worry about hypothetically breaking with sanitizers here --
whether it's KASAN or KCSAN, they both instrument atomics. In files that
enable instrumentation but the atomic instrumentation should not be
pulled in, use the arch_ variants, but this doesn't apply here because
instrumentation shouldn't even be on.
The indicator that when KCSAN is supported on arm64, the Makefile here
just needs KCSAN_SANITIZE := n, is that all other instrumentation is
also killed entirely:
$ grep -E "(PROFILE|SANITIZE|INSTRUMENT)" arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/Makefile
GCOV_PROFILE := n
KASAN_SANITIZE := n
UBSAN_SANITIZE := n
KCOV_INSTRUMENT := n
KCSAN isn't supported on arm64 yet, and when it does, I believe Mark's
arm64 KCSAN series should take care of things like this.
Thanks,
-- Marco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists