Have any influence on set_memory_** about below patch ??

[Xishi Qiu]

On 2016/1/12 19:15, Mark Rutland wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 09:20:54AM +0800, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> On 2016/1/11 21:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 08:59:44PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg472090.html
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Can I ask you a question? Say, This patch tells that the section spilting
>>>> and merging wiil produce confilct in the liner mapping area. Based on the
>>>> situation, Assume that set up page table in 4kb page table way in the liner
>>>> mapping area, Does the set_memroy_** will work without any conplict??
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand the question.
>>>
>>> I'm also not a fan of responding to off-list queries as information gets
>>> lost.
>>>
>>> Please ask your question on the mailing list. I am more than happy to
>>> respond there.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> In your patch it said "The presence of conflicting TLB entries may result in
>> a variety of behaviours detrimental to the system " and "but this(break-before-make
>> approach) cannot work for modifications to the swapper page tables that cover the
>> kernel text and data."
>>
>> I'm not quite understand this, why the direct mapping can't work?
> 
> The problem is that the TLB hardware can operate asynchronously to the
> rest of the CPU. At any point in time, for any reason, it can decide to
> destroy TLB entries, to allocate new ones, or to perform a walk based on
> the existing contents of the TLB.
> 
> When the TLB contains conflicting entries, TLB lookups may result in TLB
> conflict aborts, or may return an "amalgamation" of the conflicting
> entries (e.g. you could get an erroneous output address).
> 
> The direct mapping is in active use (and hence live in TLBs). Modifying
> it without break-before-make (BBM) risks the allocation of conflicting
> TLB entries. Modifying it with BBM risks unmapping the portion of the
> kernel performing the modification, resulting in an unrecoverable abort.
> 
>> flush tlb can't resolve it?
> 
> Flushing the TLB doesn't help because the page table update, TLB
> invalidate, and corresponding barrier(s) are separate operations. The
> TLB can allocate or destroy entries at any point during the sequence.
> 
> For example, without BBM a page table update would look something like:
> 
> 1)	str	<newpte>, [<*pte>]
> 2)	dsb	ish
> 3)	tlbi	vmalle1is
> 4)	dsb	ish
> 5)	isb
> 
> After step 1, the new pte value may become visible to the TLBs, and the
> TLBs may allocate a new entry for it. Until step 4 completes, this entry
> may remain active in the TLB, and may conflict with an existing entry.
> 
> If that entry covers the kernel text for steps 2-5, executing the
> sequence may result in an unrecoverable TLB conflict abort, or some
> other behaviour resulting from an amalgamated TLB, e.g. the I-cache
> might fetch instructions from the wrong address such that steps 2-5
> cannot be executed.
> 
> If the kernel doesn't explicitly access the address covered by that pte,
> there may still be a problem. The TLB may perform an internal lookup
> when performing a page table walk, and could then use an erroneous
> result to continue the walk, resulting in a variety of potential issues
> (e.g. reading from an MMIO peripheral register).
> 
> BBM avoids the conflict, but as that would mean kernel text and/or data
> would be unmapped, you can't execute the code to finish the update.
> 
>> I find x86 does not have this limit. e.g. set_memory_r*.
> 
> I don't know much about x86; it's probably worth asking the x86 guys
> about that. It may be that the x86 architecture requires that a conflict
> or amalgamation is never visible to software, or it could be that
> contemporary implementations happen to provide that property.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 

Hi Mark,

If I create swapper page tables by 4kb, not large page, then I use
set_memory_ro() to change the pate table flag, does it have the problem
too?

Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
 

> .
>