On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:01:52PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Thursday 03 Dec 2020 at 12:57:33 (+0000), Fuad Tabba wrote: > <snip> > > > +int hyp_create_idmap(void); > > > +int hyp_map_vectors(void); > > > +int hyp_back_vmemmap(phys_addr_t phys, unsigned long size, phys_addr_t back); > > > +int hyp_cpu_set_vector(enum arm64_hyp_spectre_vector slot); > > > +int hyp_create_mappings(void *from, void *to, enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot); > > > +int __hyp_create_mappings(unsigned long start, unsigned long size, > > > + unsigned long phys, unsigned long prot); > > > +unsigned long __hyp_create_private_mapping(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size, > > > + unsigned long prot); > > > + > > > > nit: I also thought that the hyp_create_mappings function names are a > > bit confusing, since there's the create_hyp_mappings functions which > > use the aforementioned *hyp_pgtable. > > Sure, happy to re-name those (and hyp_pgtable above). Any suggestions? > > > <snip> > > > +SYM_FUNC_START(__kvm_init_switch_pgd) > > > + /* Turn the MMU off */ > > > + pre_disable_mmu_workaround > > > + mrs x2, sctlr_el2 > > > + bic x3, x2, #SCTLR_ELx_M > > > + msr sctlr_el2, x3 > > > + isb > > > + > > > + tlbi alle2 > > > + > > > + /* Install the new pgtables */ > > > + ldr x3, [x0, #NVHE_INIT_PGD_PA] > > > + phys_to_ttbr x4, x3 > > > +alternative_if ARM64_HAS_CNP > > > + orr x4, x4, #TTBR_CNP_BIT > > > +alternative_else_nop_endif > > > + msr ttbr0_el2, x4 > > > + > > > + /* Set the new stack pointer */ > > > + ldr x0, [x0, #NVHE_INIT_STACK_HYP_VA] > > > + mov sp, x0 > > > + > > > + /* And turn the MMU back on! */ > > > + dsb nsh > > > + isb > > > + msr sctlr_el2, x2 > > > + isb > > > + ret x1 > > > +SYM_FUNC_END(__kvm_init_switch_pgd) > > > + > > > > Should the instruction cache be flushed here (ic iallu), to discard > > speculatively fetched instructions? > > Hmm, Will? Thoughts? The I-cache is physically tagged, so not sure what invalidation would achieve here. Fuad -- what do you think could go wrong specifically? Will
