From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:26:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fixes for SW PAN In-Reply-To: <20171206181801.igg5i6qepm4da56g@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1512558968-28980-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <5ee0b1f1-c7fc-af92-2b34-4555e59d7a20@codeaurora.org> <20171206175641.GA26554@arm.com> <20171206180135.5zorlmaij45grg25@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com> <20171206180706.GB26554@arm.com> <20171206181801.igg5i6qepm4da56g@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20171206182657.GA27883@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:18:01PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:07:07PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 06:01:35PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 05:56:42PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:01:46PM +0530, Vinayak Menon wrote: > > > > > On 12/6/2017 4:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > > After lots of collective head scratching in response to Vinayak's mail > > > > > > here: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-December/545641.html > > > > > > > > > > > > It turns out that we have a problem with SW PAN and kernel threads, where > > > > > > the saved ttbr0 value for a kernel thread can be stale and subsequently > > > > > > inherited by other kernel threads over a fork. > > > > > > > > > > > > These two patches attempt to fix that. We've not be able to reproduce > > > > > > the exact failure reported above, but I added some assertions to the > > > > > > uaccess routines to check for discrepancies between the active_mm pgd > > > > > > and the saved ttbr0 value (ignoring the zero page) and these no longer > > > > > > fire with these changes, but do fire without them if EFI runtime services > > > > > > are enabled on my Seattle board. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Will. So these 2 patches fix the case of kthreads having a stale saved ttbr0. The callstack I had shared > > > > > in the original issue description was not of a kthread (its user task with PF_KTHREAD not set. The tsk->mm was > > > > > set to NULL by exit_mm I think). So do you think this could be a different problem ? > > > > > I had a look at the dumps again and what I see is that, the PA part of the saved ttbr0 > > > > > (from thread_info) is not the same as the pa(tsk->active_mm->pgd). The PA derived from saved ttbr0 actually > > > > > points to a page which is "now" owned by slab. > > > > > > > > Having not been able to reproduce the failure you described, I can't give > > > > you a good answer to this. Looking at the code (again), if we context switch in do_exit after exit_mm, then the thread behaves an awful lot like a kernel thread: current->mm is NULL and we're in lazy TLB mode. Furthermore, that context switch will drop the last reference to the old mm and the pgd will finally be freed. So I think my patches will solve your case too because we'll call enter_lazy_tlb again when getting scheduled back in. If you have any way to test them, that would be great. > > > While these fixes make sense for a stable backport, I could go back to > > > per-cpu saved_ttbr0 as in the first version of this patchset: > > > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1471015666-23125-4-git-send-email-catalin.marinas at arm.com > > > > > > (changed in v2 for some marginally shorter asm code) > > > > To be honest, if we're going to consider changes as fundamental as that, I'd > > much prefer for us to use the active_mm->pgd directly, setting the zero page > > if it's either NULL or init_mm. This would need some hacking for EFI... > > The problem is the __pa(active_mm->pgd) and doing it in assembly may be > pretty unreadable. I don't think it would be *that* bad if you can get hold of memstart_addr. > Yet another option is to move save_ttbr0 in mm_context_t. Perhaps, but I don't dislike the current code as much as I did now that, we understand it better ;) Will