Hi Christoffer,
On 10/12/2018 10:03, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 05:31:19PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Contrary to the non-VHE version of the TLB invalidation helpers, the VHE
>> code has interrupts enabled, meaning that we can take an interrupt in
>> the middle of such a sequence, and start running something else with
>> HCR_EL2.TGE cleared.
>
> Do we have to clear TGE to perform the TLB invalidation, or is that just
> a side-effect of re-using code?
We really do need to clear TGE. From the description of TLBI VMALLE1IS:
<quote>
When EL2 is implemented and enabled in the current Security state:
— If HCR_EL2.{E2H, TGE} is not {1, 1}, the entry would be used with the
current VMID and would be required to translate the specified VA using
the EL1&0 translation regime.
— If HCR_EL2.{E2H, TGE} is {1, 1}, the entry would be required to
translate the specified VA using the EL2&0 translation regime.
</quote>
> Also, do we generally perform TLB invalidations in the kernel with
> interrupts disabled, or is this just a result of clearing TGE?
That's definitely a result of clearing TGE. We could be taking an
interrupt here, and execute a user access on the back of it (perf will
happily walk a user-space stack in that context, for example). Having
TGE clear in that context. An alternative solution would be to
save/restore TGE on interrupt entry/exit, but that's a bit overkill when
you consider how rarely we issue such TLB invalidation.
> Somehow I feel like this should look more like just another TLB
> invalidation in the kernel, but if there's a good reason why it can't
> then this is fine.
The rest of the TLB invalidation in the kernel doesn't need to
save/restore any context. They apply to a set of parameters that are
already loaded on the CPU. What we have here is substantially different.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
