From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Hyunwoo Kim <imv4bel@gmail.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/6] KVM: arm64: Correctly handle end of VA space TLBI invalidation
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2026 13:48:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260801124818.366274-5-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260801124818.366274-1-maz@kernel.org>
Our TLB invalidation by VA code is based on comparing two ranges,
one defined by the TLB, and one defined by the TLBI instruction.
Each range is defined by a start and a size. However, the way the
comparison is done doesn't account for address rollover, as it
compares an address with (base + size). This works nicely until
this expression represent the last page/block in the TTBR1 VA space,
as the result is a big fat 0. And a failed TLB invalidation.
Rewrite the comparison in a way that is immune to the address
rollover (making the end address inclusive instead of exclusive),
and move this into a common helper that is used by both VA and IPA
invalidations, as suggested by Hyunwoo Kim (although the IPA version
didn't suffer from this particular problem, obviously).
Fixes: 4ffa72ad8f37e ("KVM: arm64: nv: Add S1 TLB invalidation primitive for VNCR_EL2")
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
---
arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c
index d7dba02dc84fe..47d61d3cf053c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c
@@ -999,6 +999,20 @@ static void invalidate_vncr(struct vncr_tlb *vt)
clear_fixmap(vncr_fixmap(vt->cpu));
}
+static bool vncr_tlb_intersects(struct vncr_tlb *vt, u64 addr,
+ u64 scope_start, u64 scope_size)
+{
+ u64 tlb_size, tlb_start, tlb_end, scope_end;
+
+ tlb_size = ttl_to_size(pgshift_level_to_ttl(vt->wi.pgshift, vt->wr.level));
+
+ tlb_start = addr & ~(tlb_size - 1);
+ tlb_end = tlb_start + tlb_size - 1;
+ scope_end = scope_start + scope_size - 1;
+
+ return !(tlb_end < scope_start || tlb_start > scope_end);
+}
+
/*
* VNCR TLB invalidation occurs from MMU notifiers or TLBI instructions, and
* either can race against a vcpu not being onlined yet (no pseudo-TLB
@@ -1021,19 +1035,9 @@ static void kvm_invalidate_vncr_ipa(struct kvm *kvm, u64 start, u64 end)
if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1, NV_frac, NV2_ONLY))
return;
- kvm_for_each_vncr_tlb(i, vcpu, vt, kvm) {
- u64 ipa_start, ipa_end, ipa_size;
-
- ipa_size = ttl_to_size(pgshift_level_to_ttl(vt->wi.pgshift,
- vt->wr.level));
- ipa_start = vt->wr.pa & ~(ipa_size - 1);
- ipa_end = ipa_start + ipa_size;
-
- if (ipa_end <= start || ipa_start >= end)
- continue;
-
- invalidate_vncr(vt);
- }
+ kvm_for_each_vncr_tlb(i, vcpu, vt, kvm)
+ if (vncr_tlb_intersects(vt, vt->wr.pa, start, end - start))
+ invalidate_vncr(vt);
}
struct s1e2_tlbi_scope {
@@ -1059,28 +1063,19 @@ static void invalidate_vncr_va(struct kvm *kvm,
lockdep_assert_held_write(&kvm->mmu_lock);
kvm_for_each_vncr_tlb(i, vcpu, vt, kvm) {
- u64 va_start, va_end, va_size;
-
- va_size = ttl_to_size(pgshift_level_to_ttl(vt->wi.pgshift,
- vt->wr.level));
- va_start = vt->gva & ~(va_size - 1);
- va_end = va_start + va_size;
-
switch (scope->type) {
case TLBI_ALL:
break;
case TLBI_VA:
- if (va_end <= scope->va ||
- va_start >= (scope->va + scope->size))
+ if (!vncr_tlb_intersects(vt, vt->gva, scope->va, scope->size))
continue;
if (vt->wr.nG && vt->wr.asid != scope->asid)
continue;
break;
case TLBI_VAA:
- if (va_end <= scope->va ||
- va_start >= (scope->va + scope->size))
+ if (!vncr_tlb_intersects(vt, vt->gva, scope->va, scope->size))
continue;
break;
--
2.47.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-01 12:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-01 12:48 [PATCH 0/6] KVM: arm64: VNCR TLB invalidation fixes Marc Zyngier
2026-08-01 12:48 ` [PATCH 1/6] KVM: arm64: Remove VM-wide VNCR mapping counter Marc Zyngier
2026-08-01 12:48 ` [PATCH 2/6] KVM: arm64: Handle negative S1 walk levels in VNCR TLB size evaluation Marc Zyngier
2026-08-01 12:48 ` [PATCH 3/6] KVM: arm64: Consider SCTLR_EL2.M when mapping the L1 VNCR page Marc Zyngier
2026-08-01 12:48 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2026-08-01 12:48 ` [PATCH 5/6] KVM: arm64: Couple VNCR fixmap clearing and CPU number invalidation Marc Zyngier
2026-08-01 12:48 ` [PATCH 6/6] KVM: arm64: Add VNCR TLB tracking again Marc Zyngier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260801124818.366274-5-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=imv4bel@gmail.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=seiden@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox