[edk2-devel] [PATCH 3/6] ArmPkg/ArmMmuLib ARM: cache-invalidate initial page table entries

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 13:25, Leif Lindholm <leif at nuviainc.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:03:50 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > In the ARM version of ArmMmuLib, we are currently relying on set/way
> > invalidation to ensure that the caches are in a consistent state with
> > respect to main memory once we turn the MMU on. Even if set/way
> > operations were the appropriate method to achieve this, doing an
> > invalidate-all first and then populating the page table entries creates
> > a window where page table entries could be loaded speculatively into
> > the caches before we modify them, and shadow the new values that we
> > write there.
> >
> > So let's get rid of the blanket clean/invalidate operations, and
> > instead, update ArmUpdateTranslationTableEntry () to invalidate each
> > page table entry *after* it is written if the MMU is still disabled
> > at this point.
> >
> > On ARMv7, cache maintenance may be required also when the MMU is
> > enabled, in case the page table walker is not cache coherent. However,
> > the code being updated here is guaranteed to run only when the MMU is
> > still off, and so we can disregard the case when the MMU and caches
> > are on.
> >
> > Since the MMU and D-cache are already off when we reach this point, we
> > can drop the MMU and D-cache disables as well. Maintenance of the I-cache
> > is unnecessary, since we are not modifying any code, and the installed
> > mapping is guaranteed to be 1:1. This means we can also leave it enabled
> > while the page table population code is running.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel at linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  ArmPkg/Library/ArmMmuLib/Arm/ArmMmuLibCore.c | 25 +++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/ArmPkg/Library/ArmMmuLib/Arm/ArmMmuLibCore.c b/ArmPkg/Library/ArmMmuLib/Arm/ArmMmuLibCore.c
> > index aca7a37facac..c5906b4310cc 100644
> > --- a/ArmPkg/Library/ArmMmuLib/Arm/ArmMmuLibCore.c
> > +++ b/ArmPkg/Library/ArmMmuLib/Arm/ArmMmuLibCore.c
> > @@ -183,6 +183,8 @@ PopulateLevel2PageTable (
> >      PhysicalBase += TT_DESCRIPTOR_PAGE_SIZE;
> >    }
> >
> > +  InvalidateDataCacheRange ((UINT32 *)TranslationTable + FirstPageOffset,
> > +    RemainLength / TT_DESCRIPTOR_PAGE_SIZE * sizeof (*PageEntry));
> >  }
> >
> >  STATIC
> > @@ -257,7 +259,11 @@ FillTranslationTable (
> >          RemainLength >= TT_DESCRIPTOR_SECTION_SIZE) {
> >        // Case: Physical address aligned on the Section Size (1MB) && the length
> >        // is greater than the Section Size
> > -      *SectionEntry++ = TT_DESCRIPTOR_SECTION_BASE_ADDRESS(PhysicalBase) | Attributes;
> > +      *SectionEntry = TT_DESCRIPTOR_SECTION_BASE_ADDRESS(PhysicalBase) | Attributes;
> > +
> > +      ArmDataSynchronizationBarrier ();
> > +      ArmInvalidateDataCacheEntryByMVA ((UINTN)SectionEntry++);
> > +
>
> Since the sequence is somewhat conterintuitive, could we add a comment
> to the extent that // Force subsequent acces to fetch from main memory?
>

The barrier is there to ensure that the write made it to meain memory,
so we could actually relax this to a DMB.

> Obnoxious question: do we need another DSB here? Or are we reasonably
> guaranteed that one will appear in the instruction stream between here
> and anything else that would touch the same line?
>

The MMU enable will issue a DSB to ensure that all the cache
invalidations have completed.

> >        PhysicalBase += TT_DESCRIPTOR_SECTION_SIZE;
> >        RemainLength -= TT_DESCRIPTOR_SECTION_SIZE;
> >      } else {
> > @@ -267,9 +273,12 @@ FillTranslationTable (
> >        // Case: Physical address aligned on the Section Size (1MB) && the length
> >        //       does not fill a section
> >        // Case: Physical address NOT aligned on the Section Size (1MB)
> > -      PopulateLevel2PageTable (SectionEntry++, PhysicalBase, PageMapLength,
> > +      PopulateLevel2PageTable (SectionEntry, PhysicalBase, PageMapLength,
> >          MemoryRegion->Attributes);
> >
> > +      ArmDataSynchronizationBarrier ();
> > +      ArmInvalidateDataCacheEntryByMVA ((UINTN)SectionEntry++);
> > +
>
> Same pattern, so same questions.
>

Same answer :-)


> >        // If it is the last entry
> >        if (RemainLength < TT_DESCRIPTOR_SECTION_SIZE) {
> >          break;
> > @@ -349,18 +358,6 @@ ArmConfigureMmu (
> >      }
> >    }
> >
> > -  ArmCleanInvalidateDataCache ();
> > -  ArmInvalidateInstructionCache ();
> > -
> > -  ArmDisableDataCache ();
> > -  ArmDisableInstructionCache();
> > -  // TLBs are also invalidated when calling ArmDisableMmu()
> > -  ArmDisableMmu ();
> > -
> > -  // Make sure nothing sneaked into the cache
> > -  ArmCleanInvalidateDataCache ();
> > -  ArmInvalidateInstructionCache ();
> > -
> >    ArmSetTTBR0 ((VOID *)(UINTN)(((UINTN)TranslationTable & ~TRANSLATION_TABLE_SECTION_ALIGNMENT_MASK) | (TTBRAttributes & 0x7F)));
> >
> >    //
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
> >
> > 
> >

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#55174): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/55174
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/71562847/1813853
Group Owner: devel+owner at edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub  [edk2-devel-archive at redhat.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-