All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>,
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
	Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Don't defer TLB invalidation when zapping table entries
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:34:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZgKIides0YAA2j5Y@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240325185158.8565-2-will@kernel.org>

Hey Will,

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 06:51:56PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Commit 7657ea920c54 ("KVM: arm64: Use TLBI range-based instructions for
> unmap") introduced deferred TLB invalidation for the stage-2 page-table
> so that range-based invalidation can be used for the accumulated
> addresses. This works fine if the structure of the page-tables remains
> unchanged, but if entire tables are zapped and subsequently freed then
> we transiently leave the hardware page-table walker with a reference
> to freed memory thanks to the translation walk caches.

Yikes! Well spotted. This is rather unfortunate because the unmap path
has been found to be a massive pain w/o aggregating invalidations. But
sacrificing correctness in the name of performance... No thanks :)

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> index 3fae5830f8d2..de0b667ba296 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -896,9 +896,11 @@ static void stage2_unmap_put_pte(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
>  	if (kvm_pte_valid(ctx->old)) {
>  		kvm_clear_pte(ctx->ptep);
>  
> -		if (!stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(pgt))
> +		if (!stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(pgt) ||
> +		    kvm_pte_table(ctx->old, ctx->level)) {
>  			kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa, mmu,
>  					ctx->addr, ctx->level);
> +		}

I'm not sure this is correct, though. My understanding of TTL is that
we're telling hardware where the *leaf* entry we're invalidating is
found, however here we know that the addressed PTE is a table entry.

So maybe in the case of a table PTE this invalidation should
TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN.

>  	}
>  
>  	mm_ops->put_page(ctx->ptep);

At least for the 'normal' MMU where we use RCU, this could be changed to
->free_unlinked_table() which would defer the freeing of memory til
after the invalidation completes. But that still hoses pKVM's stage-2
MMU freeing in-place.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
	Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>,
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
	Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Don't defer TLB invalidation when zapping table entries
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:34:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZgKIides0YAA2j5Y@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240325185158.8565-2-will@kernel.org>

Hey Will,

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 06:51:56PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> Commit 7657ea920c54 ("KVM: arm64: Use TLBI range-based instructions for
> unmap") introduced deferred TLB invalidation for the stage-2 page-table
> so that range-based invalidation can be used for the accumulated
> addresses. This works fine if the structure of the page-tables remains
> unchanged, but if entire tables are zapped and subsequently freed then
> we transiently leave the hardware page-table walker with a reference
> to freed memory thanks to the translation walk caches.

Yikes! Well spotted. This is rather unfortunate because the unmap path
has been found to be a massive pain w/o aggregating invalidations. But
sacrificing correctness in the name of performance... No thanks :)

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> index 3fae5830f8d2..de0b667ba296 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -896,9 +896,11 @@ static void stage2_unmap_put_pte(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
>  	if (kvm_pte_valid(ctx->old)) {
>  		kvm_clear_pte(ctx->ptep);
>  
> -		if (!stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(pgt))
> +		if (!stage2_unmap_defer_tlb_flush(pgt) ||
> +		    kvm_pte_table(ctx->old, ctx->level)) {
>  			kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa, mmu,
>  					ctx->addr, ctx->level);
> +		}

I'm not sure this is correct, though. My understanding of TTL is that
we're telling hardware where the *leaf* entry we're invalidating is
found, however here we know that the addressed PTE is a table entry.

So maybe in the case of a table PTE this invalidation should
TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN.

>  	}
>  
>  	mm_ops->put_page(ctx->ptep);

At least for the 'normal' MMU where we use RCU, this could be changed to
->free_unlinked_table() which would defer the freeing of memory til
after the invalidation completes. But that still hoses pKVM's stage-2
MMU freeing in-place.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2024-03-26  8:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-25 18:51 [PATCH 0/3] KVM: arm64: TLBI fixes for the pgtable code Will Deacon
2024-03-25 18:51 ` Will Deacon
2024-03-25 18:51 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Don't defer TLB invalidation when zapping table entries Will Deacon
2024-03-25 18:51   ` Will Deacon
2024-03-26  8:34   ` Oliver Upton [this message]
2024-03-26  8:34     ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-26 14:31     ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-26 14:31       ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-26 16:10       ` Will Deacon
2024-03-26 16:10         ` Will Deacon
2024-03-26 16:14         ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-26 16:14           ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-25 18:51 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Don't pass a TLBI level hint " Will Deacon
2024-03-25 18:51   ` Will Deacon
2024-03-26  8:37   ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-26  8:37     ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-26  9:34     ` Will Deacon
2024-03-26  9:34       ` Will Deacon
2024-03-26 13:12       ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-26 13:12         ` Oliver Upton
2024-03-25 18:51 ` [PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm64: Use TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN in __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_range() Will Deacon
2024-03-25 18:51   ` Will Deacon
2024-03-26 13:48   ` Ryan Roberts
2024-03-26 13:48     ` Ryan Roberts
2024-03-27 12:45     ` Will Deacon
2024-03-27 12:45       ` Will Deacon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ZgKIides0YAA2j5Y@linux.dev \
    --to=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=gshan@redhat.com \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=maz@kernel.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=rananta@google.com \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=shahuang@redhat.com \
    --cc=smostafa@google.com \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.