Hi Mark, On 01/27/2017 09:38 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote: >> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries >> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum >> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base >> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All >> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise >> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory >> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific >> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table >> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0 >> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from >> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime. >> >> Consider the following pseudo code. >> >> write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1 >> >> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB >> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software. >> >> write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID] >> ISB >> write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR] >> ISB >> write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID] >> ISB >> >> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR >> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved >> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly >> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction. > > I agree that there should be no explicit accesses to the VAs for these > entries. So tasks should not see erroneous VAs, and we shouldn't see > synchronous TLB conflict aborts. > > Regardless, can this allow conflicting TLB entries to be allocated to > the reserved ASID? e.g. if one task has a 4K mapping at a given VA, and > another has a 2M mapping which covers that VA, can both be allocated > into the TLBs under the reserved ASID? > > Can that have any effect on asynchronous TLB lookups or page table > walks, e.g. for speculated accesses? A speculative access that inserts an entry into the TLB could possibly find the conflict but will not signal it. Does that answer your question? Thanks, Cov -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
