[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPk2XqrOeP6dEtPL@google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:11:58 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
Cc: 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] kvm/arm: Align the VMID allocation with the arm64
ASID one
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.
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists