Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] arm64: Work around Falkor erratum 1003

From: Christopher Covington
Date: Fri Jan 27 2017 - 16:52:58 EST

Hi Mark,

On 01/27/2017 09:38 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:52:30AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> The Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies Falkor v1 CPU may allocate TLB entries
>> using an incorrect ASID when TTBRx_EL1 is being updated. When the erratum
>> is triggered, page table entries using the new translation table base
>> address (BADDR) will be allocated into the TLB using the old ASID. All
>> circumstances leading to the incorrect ASID being cached in the TLB arise
>> when software writes TTBRx_EL1[ASID] and TTBRx_EL1[BADDR], a memory
>> operation is in the process of performing a translation using the specific
>> TTBRx_EL1 being written, and the memory operation uses a translation table
>> descriptor designated as non-global. EL2 and EL3 code changing the EL1&0
>> ASID is not subject to this erratum because hardware is prohibited from
>> performing translations from an out-of-context translation regime.
>> Consider the following pseudo code.
>> write new BADDR and ASID values to TTBRx_EL1
>> Replacing the above sequence with the one below will ensure that no TLB
>> entries with an incorrect ASID are used by software.
>> write reserved value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>> ISB
>> write new value to TTBRx_EL1[BADDR]
>> ISB
>> write new value to TTBRx_EL1[ASID]
>> ISB
>> When the above sequence is used, page table entries using the new BADDR
>> value may still be incorrectly allocated into the TLB using the reserved
>> ASID. Yet this will not reduce functionality, since TLB entries incorrectly
>> tagged with the reserved ASID will never be hit by a later instruction.
> I agree that there should be no explicit accesses to the VAs for these
> entries. So tasks should not see erroneous VAs, and we shouldn't see
> synchronous TLB conflict aborts.
> Regardless, can this allow conflicting TLB entries to be allocated to
> the reserved ASID? e.g. if one task has a 4K mapping at a given VA, and
> another has a 2M mapping which covers that VA, can both be allocated
> into the TLBs under the reserved ASID?
> Can that have any effect on asynchronous TLB lookups or page table
> walks, e.g. for speculated accesses?

A speculative access that inserts an entry into the TLB could
possibly find the conflict but will not signal it. Does that answer
your question?


Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm
Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code
Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.