On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:05 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:20:03AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > 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> > > > > > +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? > > While the MMU is off, instruction fetches can be made from the PoC > rather than the PoU, so where instructions have been modified/copied and > not cleaned to the PoC, it's possible to fetch stale copies into the > I-caches. The physical tag doesn't prevent that. > > In the regular CPU boot paths, __enabble_mmu() has an IC IALLU after > enabling the MMU to ensure that we get rid of anything stale (e.g. so > secondaries don't miss ftrace patching, which is only cleaned to the > PoU). > > That might not be a problem here, if things are suitably padded and > never dynamically patched, but if so it's probably worth a comment. > > Fuad, is that the sort of thing you were considering, or did you have > additional concerns? No other concerns. Thanks Mark. /fuad
