[PATCH] arm64: alternative:flush cache with unpatched code

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

Hi Rohit,

Please keep me on cc for future versions of this patch. Comments inline.

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:11:28AM -0700, Rohit Khanna wrote:
> In the current implementation,  __apply_alternatives patches
> flush_icache_range and then executes it without invalidating the icache.
> Thus, icache can contain some of the old instructions for
> flush_icache_range. This can cause unpredictable behavior as during
> execution we can get a mix of old and new instructions for
> flush_icache_range.
> 
> This patch :
> 1. Adds a new function flush_cache_kernel_range for flushing kernel
> memory range. This function uses non hot-patched code and can be
> safely used to flush cache during code patching.
> 
> 2. Modifies __apply_alternatives so that it uses
> flush_cache_kernel_range to flush the cache range after patching code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rohit Khanna <rokhanna@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> index 5c4bce4ac381..e93cfd26a314 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> @@ -122,6 +122,33 @@ static void patch_alternative(struct alt_instr *alt,
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +/* This is used for flushing kernel memory range after
> + * __apply_alternatives has patched kernel code
> + */
> +static void flush_cache_kernel_range(void *start, void *end)
> +{

How about something like clean_dcache_range_nopatch instead?

> +	u64 d_start, i_start, d_size, i_size;
> +
> +	/* use sanitized value of ctr_el0 rather than raw value from CPU */
> +	d_size = 4 << ((arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0.sys_val >> 0x10) & 0xF); /* bytes */
> +	i_size = 4 << (arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0.sys_val & 0xF); /* bytes */

You should be able to use read_sanitised_ftr_reg() and
cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field() here.

> +	d_start = (u64)start & ~(d_size - 1);
> +	while (d_start <= (u64)end) {

Please add a comment about the A53 erratum this is handling by using
clean+inv.

> +		asm volatile("dc civac, %0" : : "r" (d_start));
> +		d_start += d_size;
> +	}
> +	dsb(ish);
> +
> +	i_start = (u64)start & ~(i_size - 1);
> +	while (i_start <= (u64)end) {
> +		asm volatile("ic ivau, %0" : : "r" (i_start));
> +		i_start += i_size;
> +	}
> +	dsb(ish);
> +	isb();

As I mentioned before, I think it would be simpler just to avoid doing the
I-cache invalidation by range and instead call __flush_icache_all once we've
exiting the loop in __apply_alternatives.

Will