[PATCH v4 17/26] arm64: head: populate kernel page tables with MMU and caches on

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 15:29, Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 03:07:44PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 at 14:56, Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:45:41PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > Now that we can access the entire kernel image via the ID map, we can
> > > > execute the page table population code with the MMU and caches enabled.
> > > > The only thing we need to ensure is that translations via TTBR1 remain
> > > > disabled while we are updating the page tables the second time around,
> > > > in case KASLR wants them to be randomized.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm64/kernel/head.S | 62 +++++---------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> [...]
>
> > > > @@ -886,9 +857,8 @@ SYM_FUNC_START_LOCAL(__primary_switch)
> > > >        * to take into account by discarding the current kernel mapping and
> > > >        * creating a new one.
> > > >        */
> > > > -     pre_disable_mmu_workaround
> > > > -     msr     sctlr_el1, x20                  // disable the MMU
> > > > -     isb
> > > > +     adrp    x1, reserved_pg_dir             // Disable translations via TTBR1
> > > > +     load_ttbr1 x1, x1, x2
> > >
> > > I'd have thought we'd need some TLB maintenance here... is that not the
> > > case?
> > >
> >
> > You mean at this particular point? We are running from the ID map with
> > TTBR1 translations disabled. We clear the page tables, repopulate
> > them, and perform a TLBI VMALLE1.
> >
> > So are you saying repopulating the page tables while translations are
> > disabled needs to occur only after doing TLB maintenance?
>
> I'm thinking about walk cache entries from the previous page-table, which
> would make the reserved_pg_dir ineffective. However, if we're clearing the
> page-table anyway, I'm not even sure why we need reserved_pg_dir at all!
>

Perhaps not. But this code is removed again two patches later so it
doesn't matter that much to begin with.

> > > Also, it might be a tiny bit easier to clear EPD1 instead of using the
> > > reserved_pg_dir.
> > >
> >
> > Right. So is there any reason in particular why it would be
> > appropriate here but not anywhere else? IOW, why do we have
> > reserved_pg_dir in the first place if we can just flick EPD1 on and
> > off?
>
> I think using a reserved (all zeroes) page-table makes sense when it
> has its own ASID, as you can switch to/from it without TLB invalidation,
> but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Anyway, no strong preference,
> I just thought it might simplify things a bit.
>

Ah right, I hadn't considered ASIDs.