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

Ryan Roberts
2026-01-02T14:30:57Z

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.