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]
Message-ID: <81ab449c-0932-4407-a94b-8479faccddf3@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:30:53 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@....com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 03/13] arm64: mm: Implicitly invalidate user ASID based
 on TLBI operation

On 18/12/2025 15:47, Linu Cherian wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:35:41PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:00:57PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
>>> Ryan,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 02:45:48PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> When kpti is enabled, separate ASIDs are used for userspace and
>>>> kernelspace, requiring ASID-qualified TLB invalidation by virtual
>>>> address to invalidate both of them.
>>>>
>>>> Push the logic for invalidating the two ASIDs down into the low-level
>>>> tlbi-op-specific functions and remove the burden from the caller to
>>>> handle the kpti-specific behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> Co-developed-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>>>> index c5111d2afc66..31f43d953ce2 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>>>> @@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ typedef void (*tlbi_op)(u64 arg);
>>>>  static __always_inline void vae1is(u64 arg)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	__tlbi(vae1is, arg);
>>>> +	__tlbi_user(vae1is, arg);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  static __always_inline void vae2is(u64 arg)
>>>> @@ -126,6 +127,7 @@ static __always_inline void vale1(u64 arg)
>>>>  static __always_inline void vale1is(u64 arg)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	__tlbi(vale1is, arg);
>>>> +	__tlbi_user(vale1is, arg);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  static __always_inline void vale2is(u64 arg)
>>>> @@ -162,11 +164,6 @@ static __always_inline void __tlbi_level(tlbi_op op, u64 addr, u32 level)
>>>>  	op(arg);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> -#define __tlbi_user_level(op, arg, level) do {				\
>>>> -	if (arm64_kernel_unmapped_at_el0())				\
>>>> -		__tlbi_level(op, (arg | USER_ASID_FLAG), level);	\
>>>> -} while (0)
>>>> -
>>>>  /*
>>>>   * This macro creates a properly formatted VA operand for the TLB RANGE. The
>>>>   * value bit assignments are:
>>>> @@ -435,8 +432,6 @@ static inline void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
>>>>   * @stride:	Flush granularity
>>>>   * @asid:	The ASID of the task (0 for IPA instructions)
>>>>   * @tlb_level:	Translation Table level hint, if known
>>>> - * @tlbi_user:	If 'true', call an additional __tlbi_user()
>>>> - *              (typically for user ASIDs). 'flase' for IPA instructions
>>>>   * @lpa2:	If 'true', the lpa2 scheme is used as set out below
>>>>   *
>>>>   * When the CPU does not support TLB range operations, flush the TLB
>>>> @@ -462,6 +457,7 @@ static inline void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
>>>>  static __always_inline void rvae1is(u64 arg)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	__tlbi(rvae1is, arg);
>>>> +	__tlbi_user(rvae1is, arg);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  static __always_inline void rvale1(u64 arg)
>>>> @@ -473,6 +469,7 @@ static __always_inline void rvale1(u64 arg)
>>>>  static __always_inline void rvale1is(u64 arg)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	__tlbi(rvale1is, arg);
>>>> +	__tlbi_user(rvale1is, arg);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  static __always_inline void rvaale1is(u64 arg)
>>>> @@ -491,7 +488,7 @@ static __always_inline void __tlbi_range(tlbi_op op, u64 arg)
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  #define __flush_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride,			\
>>>> -				asid, tlb_level, tlbi_user, lpa2)	\
>>>> +				asid, tlb_level, lpa2)			\
>>>>  do {									\
>>>>  	typeof(start) __flush_start = start;				\
>>>>  	typeof(pages) __flush_pages = pages;				\
>>>> @@ -506,8 +503,6 @@ do {									\
>>>>  		    (lpa2 && __flush_start != ALIGN(__flush_start, SZ_64K))) {	\
>>>>  			addr = __TLBI_VADDR(__flush_start, asid);	\
>>>>  			__tlbi_level(op, addr, tlb_level);		\
>>>> -			if (tlbi_user)					\
>>>> -				__tlbi_user_level(op, addr, tlb_level);	\
>>>>  			__flush_start += stride;			\
>>>>  			__flush_pages -= stride >> PAGE_SHIFT;		\
>>>>  			continue;					\
>>>> @@ -518,8 +513,6 @@ do {									\
>>>>  			addr = __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE(__flush_start >> shift, asid, \
>>>>  						scale, num, tlb_level);	\
>>>>  			__tlbi_range(r##op, addr);			\
>>>> -			if (tlbi_user)					\
>>>> -				__tlbi_user(r##op, addr);		\
>>>>  			__flush_start += __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(num, scale) << PAGE_SHIFT; \
>>>>  			__flush_pages -= __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(num, scale);\
>>>
>>>
>>> There are more __tlbi_user invocations in __flush_tlb_mm, __local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify_nosync
>>> and __flush_tlb_page_nosync in this file. Should we not address them as well as 
>>> part of this ?
>>>
>>
>> I see that except __flush_tlb_mm, the others got addressed in subsequent patches.
>> Should we hint this in the commit message ?
> 
> Please ignore this comment, somehow the commit message gave me an impression that
> all the invocations of __tlbi_user is going to get updated.
> 

I think you're telling me to ignore the whole thread here, so nothing to
address? Shout if I misunderstood.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ