Re: [PATCH v1 03/13] arm64: mm: Implicitly invalidate user ASID based on TLBI operation

Linu Cherian
2026-01-05T13:03:35Z

Ryan,

On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 02:30:53PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 18/12/2025 15:47, Linu Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:35:41PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:00:57PM +0530, Linu Cherian wrote:
> >>> Ryan,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 02:45:48PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> >>>> When kpti is enabled, separate ASIDs are used for userspace and
> >>>> kernelspace, requiring ASID-qualified TLB invalidation by virtual
> >>>> address to invalidate both of them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Push the logic for invalidating the two ASIDs down into the low-level
> >>>> tlbi-op-specific functions and remove the burden from the caller to
> >>>> handle the kpti-specific behaviour.
> >>>>
> >>>> Co-developed-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 27 ++++++++++-----------------
> >>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> >>>> index c5111d2afc66..31f43d953ce2 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> >>>> @@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ typedef void (*tlbi_op)(u64 arg);
> >>>> static __always_inline void vae1is(u64 arg)
> >>>> {
> >>>> __tlbi(vae1is, arg);
> >>>> + __tlbi_user(vae1is, arg);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static __always_inline void vae2is(u64 arg)
> >>>> @@ -126,6 +127,7 @@ static __always_inline void vale1(u64 arg)
> >>>> static __always_inline void vale1is(u64 arg)
> >>>> {
> >>>> __tlbi(vale1is, arg);
> >>>> + __tlbi_user(vale1is, arg);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static __always_inline void vale2is(u64 arg)
> >>>> @@ -162,11 +164,6 @@ static __always_inline void __tlbi_level(tlbi_op op, u64 addr, u32 level)
> >>>> op(arg);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -#define __tlbi_user_level(op, arg, level) do { \
> >>>> - if (arm64_kernel_unmapped_at_el0()) \
> >>>> - __tlbi_level(op, (arg | USER_ASID_FLAG), level); \
> >>>> -} while (0)
> >>>> -
> >>>> /*
> >>>> * This macro creates a properly formatted VA operand for the TLB RANGE. The
> >>>> * value bit assignments are:
> >>>> @@ -435,8 +432,6 @@ static inline void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
> >>>> * @stride: Flush granularity
> >>>> * @asid: The ASID of the task (0 for IPA instructions)
> >>>> * @tlb_level: Translation Table level hint, if known
> >>>> - * @tlbi_user: If 'true', call an additional __tlbi_user()
> >>>> - * (typically for user ASIDs). 'flase' for IPA instructions
> >>>> * @lpa2: If 'true', the lpa2 scheme is used as set out below
> >>>> *
> >>>> * When the CPU does not support TLB range operations, flush the TLB
> >>>> @@ -462,6 +457,7 @@ static inline void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
> >>>> static __always_inline void rvae1is(u64 arg)
> >>>> {
> >>>> __tlbi(rvae1is, arg);
> >>>> + __tlbi_user(rvae1is, arg);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static __always_inline void rvale1(u64 arg)
> >>>> @@ -473,6 +469,7 @@ static __always_inline void rvale1(u64 arg)
> >>>> static __always_inline void rvale1is(u64 arg)
> >>>> {
> >>>> __tlbi(rvale1is, arg);
> >>>> + __tlbi_user(rvale1is, arg);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> static __always_inline void rvaale1is(u64 arg)
> >>>> @@ -491,7 +488,7 @@ static __always_inline void __tlbi_range(tlbi_op op, u64 arg)
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> #define __flush_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride, \
> >>>> - asid, tlb_level, tlbi_user, lpa2) \
> >>>> + asid, tlb_level, lpa2) \
> >>>> do { \
> >>>> typeof(start) __flush_start = start; \
> >>>> typeof(pages) __flush_pages = pages; \
> >>>> @@ -506,8 +503,6 @@ do { \
> >>>> (lpa2 && __flush_start != ALIGN(__flush_start, SZ_64K))) { \
> >>>> addr = __TLBI_VADDR(__flush_start, asid); \
> >>>> __tlbi_level(op, addr, tlb_level); \
> >>>> - if (tlbi_user) \
> >>>> - __tlbi_user_level(op, addr, tlb_level); \
> >>>> __flush_start += stride; \
> >>>> __flush_pages -= stride >> PAGE_SHIFT; \
> >>>> continue; \
> >>>> @@ -518,8 +513,6 @@ do { \
> >>>> addr = __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE(__flush_start >> shift, asid, \
> >>>> scale, num, tlb_level); \
> >>>> __tlbi_range(r##op, addr); \
> >>>> - if (tlbi_user) \
> >>>> - __tlbi_user(r##op, addr); \
> >>>> __flush_start += __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(num, scale) << PAGE_SHIFT; \
> >>>> __flush_pages -= __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(num, scale);\
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are more __tlbi_user invocations in __flush_tlb_mm, __local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify_nosync
> >>> and __flush_tlb_page_nosync in this file. Should we not address them as well as
> >>> part of this ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see that except __flush_tlb_mm, the others got addressed in subsequent patches.
> >> Should we hint this in the commit message ?
> >
> > Please ignore this comment, somehow the commit message gave me an impression that
> > all the invocations of __tlbi_user is going to get updated.
> >
>
> I think you're telling me to ignore the whole thread here, so nothing to
> address? Shout if I misunderstood.
>

Yes. But please have a look at the comment on another thread for the same patch.