On 09/08/2022 17:53, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:53:18PM +0100, Nikos Nikoleris wrote:
On 09/08/2022 15:22, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 02:53:34PM +0100, Nikos Nikoleris wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 09/08/2022 10:15, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
asm_mmu_disable is overly ambitious and provably incorrect:
1. It tries to clean and invalidate the data caches for the *entire*
memory, which is highly unnecessary, as it's very unlikely that a test
will write to the entire memory, and even more unlikely that a test will
modify the text section of the test image.
While it appears that we don't modify the text section, there is some
loading happening before we start executing a test. Are you sure that the
loader doesn't leave the memory dirty?
Yes, it's in the boot protocol for Linux [1]. I also mentioned this in the
commit message for the previous patch.
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19/source/Documentation/arm64/booting.rst#L180
I see, thanks!
Right now {asm_,}mmu_disable() is not used anywhere. So this patch will
introduce the assumption that mmu_disable() can be safely called only if we
didn't perform any writes, outside the test's stack, doesn't it?
This patch introduces the assumption that the code that disables the MMU
will do the necessary cache maintenance. I should reword the commit
message to make it clearer.
When we add support for EFI, there is a lot happening from efi_main() until
we get to the point where we can mmu_disable(), cleaning just the (new)
stack of the test seems risky.
Well, that's an understatement, the code disabling the MMU definitly needs
to do the necessary cache maintenance! asm_mmu_disable() is not a silver
bullet that removes the need to do any cache maintenace, the previous patch
explains what needs to be done and why. If you're looking for inspiration
about what maintenance to be done for UEFI, I suggest you look there. Or
even better, you can reuse that code, which I think is the better approach
for the UEFI series going forward, but that's a discussion for the UEFI
thread.
I would argue that asm_mmu_disable() was "a silver bullet" and your
patch is changing it. How do you choose what is reasonable for
asm_mmu_disable to clean? Why should it clean the stack?
2. There is no corresponding dcache invalidate command for the entire
memory in asm_mmu_enable, leaving it up to the test that disabled the
MMU to do the cache maintenance in an asymmetrical fashion: only for
re-enabling the MMU, but not for disabling it.
3. It's missing the DMB SY memory barrier to ensure that the dcache
maintenance is performed after the last store executed in program order
before calling asm_mmu_disable.
I am not sure why this is needed. In general, iiuc, a store to location x
followed by a DC CVAC to x in program order don't need an barrier (see Arm
ARM ARM DDI 0487G.b "Data cache maintenance instructions" at K11.5.1 and
Just a note, the latest public version is H.a.
K11.5.1 looks to me like it deals with ordering of the cache maintenance
operations with regards to memory accesses that are *after* the CMO in
program order, this patch is about memory accesses that are *before* the
CMO in program order.
The AArch64 example in K11.5.1 has a memory instruction before and after the
CMO:
STR W5, [X1]
DC CVAC, X1
DMB ISH
STR W0, [X4]
The first store and the DC CVAC access the same cache line and there is no
need for a memory barrier in between. The second store is assumed to be to a
different location and that's why we need a barrier to order it with respect
to the DC CVAC.
It's explained why the DMB is not necessary in the section that you've
referenced. I'll reproduce the paragraph:
"All data cache instructions, other than DC ZVA, that specify an address:
Execute in program order relative to loads or stores that have all of the
following properties:
—Access an address in Normal memory with either Inner Write Through or
Inner Write Back attributes within the same cache line of minimum size, as
indicated by CTR_EL0.DMinLine.
—Use an address with the same cacheability attributes as the address passed
to the data cache instruction."
Both the store and the dcache clean access the same cache line, indexed by
the adress in register X1. Does that make sense to you?
"Ordering and completion of data and instruction cache instructions" at
D4-2656). It doesn't hurt to have it but I think it's unnecessary.
D4-2656 is about PAC, I assume you meant D4-2636 judging from the section
name (please correct me if I'm wrong): >
"All data cache instructions, other than DC ZVA, that specify an address:
[..]
Can execute in any order relative to loads or stores that access any
address with the Device memory attribute, or with Normal memory with Inner
Non-cacheable attribute unless a DMB or DSB is executed between the
instructions."
Since the maintenance is performed with the MMU off, I think the DMB SY is
required as per the architecture.
I prefer to keep the maintenance after the MMU is disabled, to allow for
any kind of translation table setups that a test might conjure up (a test
in theory can create and install its own translation tables).
Right, so between the stores and the DC CVAC, we've switched the MMU off, in
which case the DMB SY might be necessary. I was missing this part.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
might be necessary or might be **unnecessary**?
I would say that it's definitely unecessary according to the
architecture, not "might be".
Well you had successfully convinced me that since we're switching the
MMU off, there needs to be a barrier to ensure that the dc cvac is
ordered with respect to prior stores. Switching the MMU off means that
stores could be executed with different memory attributes (e.g., Normal,
Inner-Shareable, Writeback) than the DC CVAC (Device-nGnRnE). Some type
of barrier might be needed. This is what your patch is doing.
The benefits of this design choice (switch the MMU off then clean data) are
still unclear to me. This patch is modifying the CMO operation to perform
only a clean. Why can't we clean the data cache before we switch off the MMU
and use the same translation we used to write to it.
What do you mean by "translation"? Same VA to PA mapping? Or same address
attributes? If it's the latter, the architecture is pretty clear that this
is correct and expected.
Both.
If it's the VA to PA mapping, asm_mmu_disable is called with an identify
mapped stack, otherwise following the ret at the end of the function,
asm_mmu_disable would not return to the calling function (when the MMU is
disabled, all addresses are flat mapped, and x30/lr will point to some
bogus address). mmu_disable() even has an assert to check that the stack is
identify mapped.
So I really do think that the order of the operations is correct. Unless
you can prove otherwise.
Why is it so important to you that the dcache is cleaned with the MMU on?
It's correct either way, so I'm interested to know why you are so keen on
doing it with the MMU enabled. I've already told you my reason for doing it
with the MMU disabled, I'm waiting to hear yours.
Sorry, maybe I am missing something. As far as I remember, your argument
was that invalidating the cache before switching the MMU off was
pointless, for Normal Memory any kind of speculation might result in
fetching data to the cache. I agree. But this patch changes the CMO we
use and it doesn't invalidate any more. What was the argument for
cleaning the cache after switching the MMU off?
I am happy either way, I am just trying to understand :)
Thanks,
Nikos
Thanks,
Alex
Thanks,
Nikos
Thanks,
Alex
Thanks,
Nikos
Fix all of the issues in one go, by doing the cache maintenance only for
the stack, as that is out of the control of the C code, and add the missing
memory barrier.
The code used to test that mmu_disable works correctly is similar to the
code used to test commit 410b3bf09e76 ("arm/arm64: Perform dcache clean
+ invalidate after turning MMU off"), with extra cache maintenance
added:
+#include <alloc_page.h>
+#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
+#include <asm/mmu.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
+ int *x = alloc_page();
+ bool pass = true;
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
+ *x = 0x42;
+ dcache_clean_addr_poc((unsigned long)x);
+ mmu_disable();
+ if (*x != 0x42) {
+ pass = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ *x = 0x50;
+ /* Needed for the invalidation only. */
+ dcache_clean_inval_addr_poc((unsigned long)x);
+ mmu_enable(current_thread_info()->pgtable);
+ if (*x != 0x50) {
+ pass = false;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ report(pass, "MMU disable cache maintenance");
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx>
---
arm/cstart.S | 11 ++++++-----
arm/cstart64.S | 11 +++++------
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arm/cstart.S b/arm/cstart.S
index fc7c558802f1..b27de44f30a6 100644
--- a/arm/cstart.S
+++ b/arm/cstart.S
@@ -242,11 +242,12 @@ asm_mmu_disable:
mcr p15, 0, r0, c1, c0, 0
isb
- ldr r0, =__phys_offset
- ldr r0, [r0]
- ldr r1, =__phys_end
- ldr r1, [r1]
- dcache_by_line_op dccimvac, sy, r0, r1, r2, r3
+ dmb sy
+ mov r0, sp
+ lsr r0, #THREAD_SHIFT
+ lsl r0, #THREAD_SHIFT
+ add r1, r0, #THREAD_SIZE
+ dcache_by_line_op dccmvac, sy, r0, r1, r3, r4
mov pc, lr
diff --git a/arm/cstart64.S b/arm/cstart64.S
index 1ce6b9e14d23..af4970775298 100644
--- a/arm/cstart64.S
+++ b/arm/cstart64.S
@@ -283,12 +283,11 @@ asm_mmu_disable:
msr sctlr_el1, x0
isb
- /* Clean + invalidate the entire memory */
- adrp x0, __phys_offset
- ldr x0, [x0, :lo12:__phys_offset]
- adrp x1, __phys_end
- ldr x1, [x1, :lo12:__phys_end]
- dcache_by_line_op civac, sy, x0, x1, x2, x3
+ dmb sy
+ mov x9, sp
+ and x9, x9, #THREAD_MASK
+ add x10, x9, #THREAD_SIZE
+ dcache_by_line_op cvac, sy, x9, x10, x11, x12
ret
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
