Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] arm64: KVM: Handle ARM erratum 1165522 in TLB invalidation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Marc,

On 23/11/2018 18:41, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> In order to avoid TLB corruption whilst invalidating TLBs on CPUs
> affected by erratum 1165522, we need to prevent S1 page tables
> from being usable.
> 
> For this, we set the EL1 S1 MMU on, and also disable the page table
> walker (by setting the TCR_EL1.EPD* bits to 1).
> 
> This ensures that once we switch to the EL1/EL0 translation regime,
> speculated AT instructions won't be able to parse the page tables.

Reviewed-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>


I think we can ditch an isb or two:

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/tlb.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/tlb.c
> index 7fcc9c1a5f45..0506ced16afc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/tlb.c
> @@ -21,12 +21,37 @@
>  #include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
>  #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>  
> +struct tlb_inv_context {
> +	unsigned long	flags;
> +	u64		tcr;
> +	u64		sctlr;
> +};
> +
>  static void __hyp_text __tlb_switch_to_guest_vhe(struct kvm *kvm,
> -						 unsigned long *flags)
> +						 struct tlb_inv_context *cxt)
>  {
>  	u64 val;
>  
> -	local_irq_save(*flags);
> +	local_irq_save(cxt->flags);
> +
> +	if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_1165522)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * For CPUs that are affected by ARM erratum 1165522, we
> +		 * cannot trust stage-1 to be in a correct state at that
> +		 * point. Since we do not want to force a full load of the
> +		 * vcpu state, we prevent the EL1 page-table walker to
> +		 * allocate new TLBs. This is done by setting the EPD bits
> +		 * in the TCR_EL1 register. We also need to prevent it to
> +		 * allocate API->PA walks, so we enable the S1 MMU...

typo: API => IPA


> +		 */
> +		val = cxt->tcr = read_sysreg_el1(tcr);
> +		val |= TCR_EPD1_MASK | TCR_EPD0_MASK;
> +		write_sysreg_el1(val, tcr);
> +		val = cxt->sctlr = read_sysreg_el1(sctlr);
> +		val |= SCTLR_ELx_M;
> +		write_sysreg_el1(val, sctlr);

> +		isb();

Could you leave these to be synchronised by the isb() in __load_guest_stage2()?
An AT speculated here would see HCR_EL2.TGE set and use the EL2&EL0 regime.


> +	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * With VHE enabled, we have HCR_EL2.{E2H,TGE} = {1,1}, and
> @@ -34,8 +59,13 @@ static void __hyp_text __tlb_switch_to_guest_vhe(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	 * guest TLBs (EL1/EL0), we need to change one of these two
>  	 * bits. Changing E2H is impossible (goodbye TTBR1_EL2), so
>  	 * let's flip TGE before executing the TLB operation.
> +	 *
> +	 * ARM erratum 1165522 requires some special handling (again),

> +	 * as we need to make sure stage-2 is in place before clearing
> +	 * TGE.

Typo: stage-1?

stage2 remains disabled here, we only call __load_guest_stage2() for the vmid.
The problem was the EL1:stage-1 being usable and unknown when TGE is cleared.


>  	 */
>  	__load_guest_stage2(kvm);
> +	asm(ALTERNATIVE("nop", "isb", ARM64_WORKAROUND_1165522));

__load_guest_stage2() already has an isb for this workaround after it writes
vtcr/vttbr. I think we can just refer to it in the comment and let it
synchronise the stage1+2 config before we touch hcr_el2 below.


>  	val = read_sysreg(hcr_el2);
>  	val &= ~HCR_TGE;
>  	write_sysreg(val, hcr_el2);

[...]

> @@ -64,11 +94,19 @@ static void __hyp_text __tlb_switch_to_host_vhe(struct kvm *kvm,
>  	write_sysreg(0, vttbr_el2);
>  	write_sysreg(HCR_HOST_VHE_FLAGS, hcr_el2);
>  	isb();
> -	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +	if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_1165522)) {
> +		/* Restore the guest's registers to what they were */
> +		write_sysreg_el1(cxt->tcr, tcr);
> +		write_sysreg_el1(cxt->sctlr, sctlr);

> +		isb();

Hmm, why do we need this isb?

We just set TGE, so these registers values no long matter. vcpu_put() would read
the values we wrote, as would __tlb_switch_to_guest_vhe() above if we re-ran
this sequence. If we're on our way into the guest, the extra isb in
__load_guest_stage2() would synchronise them before clearing TGE during
world-switch.

I don't think there is a path where we depend on these values being isb'd before
guest eret.

(if its just to be robust, I'm all in favour of it!)


Thanks,

James
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm



[Index of Archives]     [Linux KVM]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux