On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 02:59:47PM +0000, Steven Price wrote: > I proposed something similar a while ago[1], but Marc was concerned about > the microarch detail[2] and hence I split the workaround into VHE/non-VHE. > > That said I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong, just that we'd need some > more information on whether the non-VHE workaround is suitable for the CPUs > we're currently forcing VHE on. We noticed that both the nVHE and VHE workarounds share the same assumption that the EPDx bits are not being cached in the TLB. `__tlb_switch_to_guest_vhe` and `__tlb_switch_to_guest_nvhe` are both setting EPDx as part of the workaround. However, neither handles the possibility of a speculative AT being able to make use of a cached EPD=0 value in the TLB in order to allocate bad TLB entries. If this is correct, the microarch concern appears to have been solved already. Otherwise, or if we are unsure, we should go ahead and add the TLB flushes to keep this safe. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
