Re: [PATCH] arm64: tlb: Flush walk cache when unsharing PMD tables

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 11:13:17AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 01:32:07PM +0800, Zeng Heng wrote:
> > On 2026/5/21 23:15, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 04:05:07PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 03:30:11PM +0800, Zeng Heng wrote:
> > > > > From: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@huawei.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > When huge_pmd_unshare() is called to unshare a PMD table, the
> > > > > tlb_unshare_pmd_ptdesc() function sets tlb->unshared_tables=true
> > > > > but the aarch64 tlb_flush() only checked tlb->freed_tables to
> > > > > determine whether to use TLBF_NONE (vae1is, invalidates walk
> > > > > cache) or TLBF_NOWALKCACHE (vale1is, leaf-only).
> > > > > 
> > > > > This caused the stale PMD page table entry to remain in the walk cache
> > > > > after unshare, potentially leading to incorrect page table walks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fix by including unshared_tables in the check, so that when
> > > > > unsharing tables, TLBF_NONE is used and the walk cache is properly
> > > > > invalidated.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here is the detailed distinction between vae1is and vale1is:
> > > > > 
> > > > > | Instruction Combination  | Actual Invalidation Scope                         |
> > > > > | ------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------|
> > > > > | `VAE1IS`  + TTL=`0`      | All entries at all levels (full invalidation)     |
> > > > > | `VAE1IS`  + TTL=`2` (L2) | Non-leaf at Level 0/1 + leaf at Level 2           |
> > > > > | `VALE1IS` + TTL=`0`      | Leaf entries at all levels (non-leaf not cleared) |
> > > > > | `VALE1IS` + TTL=`2` (L2) | Leaf entry at Level 2 only                        |
[...]
> > Per the ARM Architecture Reference Manual, whether only the last-level
> > page table entry is invalidated is determined by the instruction used
> > (vale1is for leaf entry only, vae1is for walk cache including leaf entry and
> > non-leaf entry), rather than the TTL field. The TTL field merely specifies
> > which level the leaf entry belongs to.
> 
> Ah, yes, you are right. The TTL is still 2 in this case for a huge pmd,
> we just want the walk cache leading to it to be invalidated. So no need
> for the additional tlb_get_level().

The Arm ARM is still unclear. The RVAE1IS has this wording:

  The TTL hint is only guaranteed to invalidate:

  - Non-leaf-level entries in the range up to but not including the
    level described by the TTL hint.

  - Leaf-level entries in the range that match the level described by
    the TTL hint.

But we don't have such wording around non-leaf-level entries for VAE1IS.
I presume it would be the same but I'll ask internally next week. In the
meantime, I'll take this patch.

-- 
Catalin