On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 4:16 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:54:55PM -0400, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> > > > +/* Allocates pages for kexec page table */
> > > > +static void *kexec_page_alloc(void *arg)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct kimage *kimage = (struct kimage *)arg;
> > > > + struct page *page = kimage_alloc_control_pages(kimage, 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!page)
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > > > + memset(page_address(page), 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> > >
> > > Hmm, I think we might be missing barriers here to ensure that the zeroes
> > > are visible to the page-table walker before we plumb the page into the
> > > page-table.
> > >
> > > Usually, that's taken care of by the smp_wmb() in __pXX_alloc() but I
> > > can't see that here. Is it hiding?
> >
> > Based on the comment in __pte_alloc() that smp_wmb() is needed in
> > order to synchronize pte setup with other cpus prior to making it
> > visible to them. This is not needed here. First, by the time these
> > page tables are used the other cpus are offlined (kexec reboot code is
> > single threaded). Second, we never insert any entry into a page table
> > that is actively used by any cpu.
>
> I think the comment there is wrong, but the barrier is still necessary.
> How else do you guarantee that the page-table walker reads the zeroes from
> the memset?
True, good point. We are still safe because we have the following:
cpu_install_ttbr0() is used to load trans_pgd tables both in kexec and
hibernate cases.
cpu_install_ttbr0 has: local_flush_tlb_all()
dsb(nshst); // Ensure prior page-table updates have completed
__tlbi(vmalle1); // Invalidate the TLB
dsb(nsh); // Ensure the TLB invalidation has completed
isb(); // Discard any instructions fetched from the old mapping
Pasha
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
