Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Fix handling of merging tables into a block entry

Will Deacon
2020-12-01T18:18:57Z

On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 01:20:33AM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
> On 2020/12/1 22:35, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> > Hi Yanan,
> >
> > On 2020-12-01 14:11, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
> > > On 2020/12/1 21:46, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 10:30:41AM +0800, wangyanan (Y) wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > The point is at b.iii where the TLBI is not enough. There
> > > > > are many page
> > > > > mappings that we need to merge into a block mapping.
> > > > >
> > > > > We invalidate the TLB for the input address without level
> > > > > hint at b.iii, but
> > > > > this operation just flush TLB for one page mapping, there
> > > > >
> > > > > are still some TLB entries for the other page mappings in
> > > > > the cache, the MMU
> > > > > hardware walker can still hit these entries next time.
> > > > Ah, yes, I see. Thanks. I hadn't considered the case where there
> > > > are table
> > > > entries beneath the anchor. So how about the diff below?
> > > >
> > > > Will
> > > >
> > > > --->8
> > >
> > > Hi, I think it's inappropriate to put the TLBI of all the leaf entries
> > > in function stage2_map_walk_table_post(),
> > >
> > > because the *ptep must be an upper table entry when we enter
> > > stage2_map_walk_table_post().
> > >
> > > We should make the TLBI for every leaf entry not table entry in the
> > > last lookup level,  just as I am proposing
> > >
> > > to add the additional TLBI in function stage2_map_walk_leaf().
> >
> > Could you make your concerns explicit? As far as I can tell, this should
> > address the bug you found, at least from a correctness perspective.
> >
> > Are you worried about the impact of the full S2 invalidation? Or do you
> > see another correctness issue?
>
>
> Hi Will, Marc,
>
>
> After recheck of the diff, the full S2 invalidation in
> stage2_map_walk_table_post() should be well enough to solve this problem.
>
> But I was wondering if we can add the full S2 invalidation in
> stage2_map_walk_table_pre(), where __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid() will be called for
> only one time.
>
> If we add the full TLBI in stage2_map_walk_table_post(),
> __kvm_tlb_flush_vmid() might be called for many times in the loop and lots
> of (unnecessary) CPU instructions will be wasted.
>
> What I'm saying is something like below, please let me know what do you
> think.
>
> If this is OK, I can update the diff in v2 and send it with your SOB (is it
> appropriate?) after some tests.
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> index b232bdd142a6..f11fb2996080 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c
> @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ static int stage2_map_walk_table_pre(u64 addr, u64 end,
> u32 level,
>                 return 0;
>
>         kvm_set_invalid_pte(ptep);
> -       kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid_ipa, data->mmu, addr, 0);
> +       kvm_call_hyp(__kvm_tlb_flush_vmid, data->mmu);
>         data->anchor = ptep;
>         return 0;

Yes, I think that's much better, but please add a comment! (you can
probably more-or-less copy the one I had in the post handler)

Will