Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 838D860590
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] Revert "arm64: Enforce BBM for huge IO/VMAP
 mappings"
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, arnd@arndb.de
Cc:     mark.rutland@arm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
        james.morse@arm.com, kristina.martsenko@arm.com,
        takahiro.akashi@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, toshi.kani@hpe.com
References: <1521017305-28518-1-git-send-email-cpandya@codeaurora.org>
 <1521017305-28518-5-git-send-email-cpandya@codeaurora.org>
 <bdcc02a1-cf1b-4887-06e9-4867415ca214@arm.com>
From:   Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <d7d8fe7c-e313-67ac-3793-6a300d61923f@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:02:33 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bdcc02a1-cf1b-4887-06e9-4867415ca214@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 3/14/2018 4:16 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 14/03/18 08:48, Chintan Pandya wrote:
>> This commit 15122ee2c515a ("arm64: Enforce BBM for huge
>> IO/VMAP mappings") is a temporary work-around until the
>> issues with CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_VMAP gets fixed.
>>
>> Revert this change as we have fixes for the issue.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya <cpandya@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 8 --------
>>   1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> index c0df264..19116c6 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
>> @@ -935,10 +935,6 @@ int pud_set_huge(pud_t *pudp, phys_addr_t phys, pgprot_t prot)
>>   	pgprot_t sect_prot = __pgprot(PUD_TYPE_SECT |
>>   					pgprot_val(mk_sect_prot(prot)));
>>   
>> -	/* ioremap_page_range doesn't honour BBM */
>> -	if (pud_present(READ_ONCE(*pudp)))
>> -		return 0;
>> -
>>   	BUG_ON(phys & ~PUD_MASK);
>>   	if (pud_val(*pud) && !pud_huge(*pud))
>>   		free_page((unsigned long)__va(pud_val(*pud)));
>> @@ -952,10 +948,6 @@ int pmd_set_huge(pmd_t *pmdp, phys_addr_t phys, pgprot_t prot)
>>   	pgprot_t sect_prot = __pgprot(PMD_TYPE_SECT |
>>   					pgprot_val(mk_sect_prot(prot)));
>>   
>> -	/* ioremap_page_range doesn't honour BBM */
>> -	if (pmd_present(READ_ONCE(*pmdp)))
>> -		return 0;
>> -
>>   	BUG_ON(phys & ~PMD_MASK);
>>   	if (pmd_val(*pmd) && !pmd_huge(*pmd))
>>   		free_page((unsigned long)__va(pmd_val(*pmd)));
>>
> 
> But you're still not doing a BBM, right? What prevents a speculative
> access from using the (now freed) entry? The TLB invalidation you've
> introduce just narrows the window where bad things can happen.
Valid point. I will rework on these patches.

Thanks Marc.

> 
> My gut feeling is that this series introduces more bugs than it fixes...
> If you're going to fix it, please fix it by correctly implementing BBM
> for huge mappings.
> 
> Or am I missing something terribly obvious?
> 
> 	M.
> 

Chintan
-- 
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation
Collaborative Project