[RFC PATCH] arm64: KVM: honor cacheability attributes on S2 page fault

[catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Catalin Marinas
> <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Anup Patel wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Catalin Marinas
> >> <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 09:39:55AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> >> On 10/10/13 05:51, Anup Patel wrote:
> >> >> > Are you planning to go ahead with this approach ?
> >> >>
> >> >> [adding Catalin, as we heavily discussed this recently]
> >> >>
> >> >> Not as such, as it doesn't solve the full issue. It merely papers over
> >> >> the whole "my cache is off" problem. More specifically, any kind of
> >> >> speculative access from another CPU while caches are off in the guest
> >> >> completely nukes the benefit of this patch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, turning the the caches off is another source of problems, as
> >> >> speculation also screws up set/way invalidation.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed. The set/way operations trapping and broadcasting (or deferring)
> >> > to other CPUs in software just happens to work but there is no
> >> > guarantee, sooner or later we'll hit a problem. I'm even tempted to
> >> > remove flush_dcache_all() calls on the booting path for the arm64
> >> > kernel, we already require that whatever runs before Linux should
> >> > clean&invalidate the caches.
> >> >
> >> > Basically, with KVM a VCPU even if running with caches/MMU disabled can
> >> > still get speculative allocation into the cache. The reason for this is
> >> > the other cacheable memory aliases created by the host kernel and
> >> > qemu/kvmtool. I can't tell whether Xen has this issue but it may be
> >> > easier in Xen to avoid memory aliases.
> >> >
> >> >> > We really need this patch for X-Gene L3 cache.
> >> >>
> >> >> So far, I can see two possibilities:
> >> >> - either we mandate caches to be always on (DC bit, and you're not
> >> >> allowed to turn the caches off).
> >> >
> >> > That's my preferred approach. For hotplug, idle, the guest would use an
> >> > HVC call (PSCI) and the host takes care of re-enabling the DC bit. But
> >> > we may not catch all cases (kexec probably).
> >> >
> >> >> - Or we mandate that caches are invalidated (by VA) for each write that
> >> >> is performed with caches off.
> >> >
> >> > For some things like run-time code patching, on ARMv8 we need to do at
> >> > least I-cache maintenance since the CPU can allocate into the I-cache
> >> > (even if there are no aliases).
> >>
> >> It seems all approaches considered so far have a corner case in
> >> one-way or another.
> >
> > Yes, we try to settle on the one with least corner cases.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> >
> >> Coming back to where we started, the actual problem was that when
> >> Guest starts booting it sees wrong contents because it is runs with
> >> MMU disable and correct contents are still in external L3 cache of X-Gene.
> >
> > That's one of the problems and I think the easiest to solve. Note that
> > contents could still be in the L1/L2 (inner) cache since whole cache
> > flushing by set/way isn't guaranteed in an MP context.
> >
> >> How about reconsidering the approach of flushing Guest RAM (entire or
> >> portion of it) to PoC by VA once before the first run of a VCPU ?
> >
> > Flushing the entire guest RAM is not possible by set/way
> > (architecturally) and not efficient by VA (though some benchmark would
> > be good). Marc's patch defers this flushing when a page is faulted in
> > (at stage 2) and I think it covers the initial boot.
> >
> >> OR
> >> We can also have KVM API using which user space can flush portions
> >> of Guest RAM before running the VCPU. (I think this was a suggestion
> >> from Marc Z initially)
> >
> > This may not be enough. It indeed flushes the kernel image that gets
> > loaded but the kernel would write other pages (bss, page tables etc.)
> > with MMU disabled and those addresses may contain dirty cache lines that
> > have not been covered by the initial kvmtool flush. So you basically
> > need all guest non-cacheable accesses to be flushed.
> >
> > The other problems are the cacheable aliases that I mentioned, so even
> > though the guest does non-cacheable accesses with the MMU off, the
> > hardware can still allocate into the cache via the other mappings. In
> > this case the guest needs to invalidate the areas of memory that it
> > wrote with caches off (or just use the DC bit to force memory accesses
> > with MMU off to be cacheable).
> 
> Having looked at all the approaches, I would vote for the approach taken
> by this patch.

But this patch alone doesn't solve the other issues. OTOH, the DC bit
would solve your initial problem and a few others.

-- 
Catalin