Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: Avoid direct referencing page table enties in map_range()

[Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>]

On 01/08/2024 14:23, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 01:48:17PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 01/08/2024 12:34, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 11:36:56AM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 25/07/2024 10:10, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>> Like else where in arm64 platform, use WRITE_ONCE() in map_range() while
>>>>> creating page table entries. This avoids referencing page table entries
>>>>> directly.
>>>>
>>>> I could be wrong, but I don't think this code is ever operating on live
>>>> pgtables? So there is never a potential to race with the HW walker and therefore
>>>> no need to guarrantee copy atomicity? As long as the correct barriers are placed
>>>> at the point where you load the pgdir into the TTBRx there should be no problem?
>>>>
>>>> If my assertion is correct, I don't think there is any need for this change.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>> I think I need to row back on this. It looks like map_range() does act on live
>> pgtables; see map_kernel() where twopass == true. init_pg_dir is populated then
>> installed in TTBR1, then permissions are modified with 3 [un]map_segment()
>> calls, which call through to map_range().
> 
> I think the permission part is fine, but I hadn't spotted that
> unmap_segment() uses map_range() to zap the ptes mapping the text. That
> *does* need single-copy atomicity, so should probably use
> __set_pte_nosync().

Yes, nice.

> 
>> So on that basis, I think the WRITE_ONCE() calls are warranted. And to be
>> consistent, I'd additionally recommend adding a READ_ONCE() around the:
>>
>> if (pte_none(*tbl)) {
> 
> Why? I don't think we need that.

I Agree its not technically required. I was suggesting it just for consistency with the other change. So perhaps __ptep_get()?


diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/map_range.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/map_range.c
index 5410b2cac5907..3f6c5717ff782 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/map_range.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pi/map_range.c
@@ -55,13 +55,14 @@ void __init map_range(u64 *pte, u64 start, u64 end, u64 pa, pgprot_t prot,
                         * This chunk needs a finer grained mapping. Create a
                         * table mapping if necessary and recurse.
                         */
-                       if (pte_none(*tbl)) {
-                               *tbl = __pte(__phys_to_pte_val(*pte) |
-                                            PMD_TYPE_TABLE | PMD_TABLE_UXN);
+                       if (pte_none(__ptep_get(tbl))) {
+                               __set_pte_nosync(tbl,
+                                            __pte(__phys_to_pte_val(*pte) |
+                                            PMD_TYPE_TABLE | PMD_TABLE_UXN));
                                *pte += PTRS_PER_PTE * sizeof(pte_t);
                        }
                        map_range(pte, start, next, pa, prot, level + 1,
-                                 (pte_t *)(__pte_to_phys(*tbl) + va_offset),
+                                 (pte_t *)(__pte_to_phys(__ptep_get(tbl)) + va_offset),
                                  may_use_cont, va_offset);
                } else {
                        /*
@@ -79,7 +80,7 @@ void __init map_range(u64 *pte, u64 start, u64 end, u64 pa, pgprot_t prot,
                                protval &= ~PTE_CONT;
 
                        /* Put down a block or page mapping */
-                       *tbl = __pte(__phys_to_pte_val(pa) | protval);
+                       __set_pte_nosync(tbl, __pte(__phys_to_pte_val(pa) | protval));
                }
                pa += next - start;
                start = next;


> 
> Will