[PATCH v4 2/3] arm64: vmlinux.ld: Add .mmuoff.{text, data} sections
From: Ard Biesheuvel <hidden>
Date: 2016-08-18 11:55:23
Subsystem:
arm64 port (aarch64 architecture), the rest · Maintainers:
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Linus Torvalds
On 18 August 2016 at 13:39, James Morse [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Ard, On 17/08/16 18:50, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:quoted
On 15 August 2016 at 19:12, James Morse [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Resume from hibernate needs to clean any text executed by the kernel with the MMU off to the PoC. Collect these functions together into a new .mmuoff.text section. __boot_cpu_mode and secondary_holding_pen_release are data that is read or written with the MMU off. Add these to a new .mmuoff.data section. This covers booting of secondary cores and the cpu_suspend() path used by cpu-idle and suspend-to-ram. The bulk of head.S is not included, as the primary boot code is only ever executed once, the kernel never needs to ensure it is cleaned to a particular point in the cache.quoted
quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S index b77f58355da1..4230eeeeabf5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/head.S@@ -621,17 +622,31 @@ set_cpu_boot_mode_flag: ENDPROC(set_cpu_boot_mode_flag) /* + * Values in this section are written with the MMU off, but read with the + * MMU on. Writers will invalidate the corresponding address, discarding + * a 'Cache Writeback Granule' (CWG) worth of data. Align these variables + * to the architectural maximum of 2K. + */ + .pushsection ".mmuoff.data", "aw" + .align 11 +/* * We need to find out the CPU boot mode long after boot, so we need to * store it in a writable variable. * * This is not in .bss, because we set it sufficiently early that the boot-time * zeroing of .bss would clobber it. */ - .pushsection .data..cacheline_aligned - .align L1_CACHE_SHIFT ENTRY(__boot_cpu_mode) .long BOOT_CPU_MODE_EL2 .long BOOT_CPU_MODE_EL1 +/* + * The booting CPU updates the failed status @__early_cpu_boot_status, + * with MMU turned off. + */ +ENTRY(__early_cpu_boot_status) + .long 0 + + .align 11How is this supposed to work? Is secondary_holding_pen_release expected to be covered by this region as well?In this section, but not in the same CWG: __boot_cpu_mode and __early_cpu_boot_status are written with the mmu off, then the corresponding cache area is invalidated. secondary_holding_pen_release works the other way round, it is written with the mmu on, then clean+invalidated, to be read with the mmu off. I grouped them together in an older version, Mark pointed out that the maintenance of one could corrupt the other if they fall within a CWG of each other. [0]quoted
Wouldn't it be better to handle this alignment in the linker script?Its not just alignment of the section, but the alignment between mmuoff:read and mmuoff:write variables. Maybe it would be cleared if they were in separate sections?
Yes, that would make sense. Also, the section containing secondary_holding_pen_release may still overlap with something else, afaict if it is emitted after the one in head.S.
(I should at least smother it with more comments)
That too :-)
quoted
(if you even need it, but see below)quoted
.popsection /*@@ -687,6 +702,7 @@ __secondary_switched: mov x29, #0 b secondary_start_kernel ENDPROC(__secondary_switched) + .popsection /* * The booting CPU updates the failed status @__early_cpu_boot_status,@@ -706,12 +722,6 @@ ENDPROC(__secondary_switched) dc ivac, \tmp1 // Invalidate potentially stale cache line .endm - .pushsection .data..cacheline_aligned - .align L1_CACHE_SHIFT -ENTRY(__early_cpu_boot_status) - .long 0 - .popsection - /* * Enable the MMU. *quoted
quoted
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S index 659963d40bb4..bbab3d886516 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S@@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ SECTIONS IRQENTRY_TEXT SOFTIRQENTRY_TEXT ENTRY_TEXT + __mmuoff_text_start = .; + *(.mmuoff.text) + __mmuoff_text_end = .; TEXT_TEXT SCHED_TEXT LOCK_TEXT@@ -186,6 +189,11 @@ SECTIONS _sdata = .; RW_DATA_SECTION(L1_CACHE_BYTES, PAGE_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE) PECOFF_EDATA_PADDINGThis padding needs to be at the end, it is intended to make the size of Image a multiple of 512.Ah, I didn't realise that, readelf says I broke this. I will move it to be before.
Yes, please. This is required for the PE/COFF signing tools (for UEFI secure boot)
(secondary_holding_pen_rel appears after head.S's align 11s, so the next symbol isn't 2KB aligned)quoted
Alternatively, you could get rid of it completely, I guess, if the end of .mmuoff.text is expected to be 2 KB aligned (but I wonder if you need to)quoted
+ .mmuoff.data : {.mmuoff.data : ALIGN (SZ_2K) {quoted
+ __mmuoff_data_start = .; + *(.mmuoff.data). = ALIGN(SZ_2K); However, if the invalidation occurs before .bss is cleared (with the caches on), perhaps there is no need to align the end of this section?We invalidate something in this section via secondary_entry() -> set_cpu_boot_mode_flag(), so this can happen any time. My understanding is that CWG is maximum amount of data that will be invalidated and at compile time we assume its worst case of 2KB. Aligning the end is to stop anything else being located in this worst case range.
Actually, it is not even necessary to align the end of .mmuoff.data, as long as the next section starts at at 2 KB aligned boundary (which is guaranteed for .bss since it covers page aligned data, although it would make sense to make that explicit) I.e., something like
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
index 659963d40bb4..70aa77060729 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S@@ -185,10 +185,18 @@ SECTIONS _data = .; _sdata = .; RW_DATA_SECTION(L1_CACHE_BYTES, PAGE_SIZE, THREAD_SIZE) + + .mmuoff.read : ALIGN(SZ_2K) { + *(.mmuoff.read) + } + .mmuoff.write : ALIGN(SZ_2K) { + *(.mmuoff.write) + } + PECOFF_EDATA_PADDING _edata = .; - BSS_SECTION(0, 0, 0) + BSS_SECTION(SZ_2K, SZ_2K, 0) . = ALIGN(PAGE_SIZE); idmap_pg_dir = .;
AFAICT, this should allow you to drop the alignments in the code. This is also more future proof, since you can simply emit variables into these sections anywhere, whereas the explicit .align directive aligns that particular variable, which could lead to more waste of space. -- Ard.