From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CEAC433E0 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 14:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995946501B for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 14:15:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 995946501B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C0D4B3C0; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:15:59 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RKFa6dICpb+y; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F934B3CB; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:15:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBBA4B3BF for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:15:57 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SeTA6G5TYM-f for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 206EB4B3BB for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:15:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 545426501A; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 14:15:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 14:15:48 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Ensure I-cache isolation between vcpus of a same VM Message-ID: <20210306141546.GB2932@arm.com> References: <20210303164505.68492-1-maz@kernel.org> <20210305190708.GL23855@arm.com> <877dmksgaw.wl-maz@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877dmksgaw.wl-maz@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel-team@android.com, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 10:54:47AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:07:09 +0000, > Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 04:45:05PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > It recently became apparent that the ARMv8 architecture has interesting > > > rules regarding attributes being used when fetching instructions > > > if the MMU is off at Stage-1. > > > > > > In this situation, the CPU is allowed to fetch from the PoC and > > > allocate into the I-cache (unless the memory is mapped with > > > the XN attribute at Stage-2). > > > > Digging through the ARM ARM is hard. Do we have this behaviour with FWB > > as well? > > The ARM ARM doesn't seem to mention FWB at all when it comes to > instruction fetch, which is sort of expected as it only covers the > D-side. I *think* we could sidestep this when CTR_EL0.DIC is set > though, as the I-side would then snoop the D-side. Not sure this helps. CTR_EL0.DIC refers to the need for maintenance to PoU while the SCTLR_EL1.M == 0 causes the I-cache to fetch from PoC. I don't think I-cache snooping the D-cache would happen to the PoU when the S1 MMU is off. My reading of D4.4.4 is that when SCTLR_EL1.M == 0 both I and D accesses are Normal Non-cacheable with a note in D4.4.6 that Non-cacheable accesses may be held in the I-cache. The FWB rules on combining S1 and S2 says that Normal Non-cacheable at S1 is "upgraded" to cacheable. This should happen irrespective of whether the S1 MMU is on or off and should apply to both I and D accesses (since it does not explicitly says). So I think we could skip this IC IALLU when FWB is present. The same logic should apply when the VMM copies the VM text. With FWB, we probably only need D-cache maintenance to PoU and only if CTR_EL0.IDC==0. I haven't checked what the code currently does. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm