From 399ec9ca8fc4999e676ff89a90184ec40031cf59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dave Hansen Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 15:41:32 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] x86/mm: Eliminate window where TLB flushes may be inadvertently skipped commit fea4e317f9e7e1f449ce90dedc27a2d2a95bee5a upstream. tl;dr: There is a window in the mm switching code where the new CR3 is set and the CPU should be getting TLB flushes for the new mm. But should_flush_tlb() has a bug and suppresses the flush. Fix it by widening the window where should_flush_tlb() sends an IPI. Long Version: === History === There were a few things leading up to this. First, updating mm_cpumask() was observed to be too expensive, so it was made lazier. But being lazy caused too many unnecessary IPIs to CPUs due to the now-lazy mm_cpumask(). So code was added to cull mm_cpumask() periodically[2]. But that culling was a bit too aggressive and skipped sending TLB flushes to CPUs that need them. So here we are again. === Problem === The too-aggressive code in should_flush_tlb() strikes in this window: // Turn on IPIs for this CPU/mm combination, but only // if should_flush_tlb() agrees: cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next)); next_tlb_gen = atomic64_read(&next->context.tlb_gen); choose_new_asid(next, next_tlb_gen, &new_asid, &need_flush); load_new_mm_cr3(need_flush); // ^ After 'need_flush' is set to false, IPIs *MUST* // be sent to this CPU and not be ignored. this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, next); // ^ Not until this point does should_flush_tlb() // become true! should_flush_tlb() will suppress TLB flushes between load_new_mm_cr3() and writing to 'loaded_mm', which is a window where they should not be suppressed. Whoops. === Solution === Thankfully, the fuzzy "just about to write CR3" window is already marked with loaded_mm==LOADED_MM_SWITCHING. Simply checking for that state in should_flush_tlb() is sufficient to ensure that the CPU is targeted with an IPI. This will cause more TLB flush IPIs. But the window is relatively small and I do not expect this to cause any kind of measurable performance impact. Update the comment where LOADED_MM_SWITCHING is written since it grew yet another user. Peter Z also raised a concern that should_flush_tlb() might not observe 'loaded_mm' and 'is_lazy' in the same order that switch_mm_irqs_off() writes them. Add a barrier to ensure that they are observed in the order they are written. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen Acked-by: Rik van Riel Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202411282207.6bd28eae-lkp@intel.com/ [1] Fixes: 6db2526c1d69 ("x86/mm/tlb: Only trim the mm_cpumask once a second") [2] Reported-by: Stephen Dolan Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Acked-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c index e491c75b2a68..3c81edd54c5c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c @@ -621,7 +621,11 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *unused, struct mm_struct *next, choose_new_asid(next, next_tlb_gen, &new_asid, &need_flush); - /* Let nmi_uaccess_okay() know that we're changing CR3. */ + /* + * Indicate that CR3 is about to change. nmi_uaccess_okay() + * and others are sensitive to the window where mm_cpumask(), + * CR3 and cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm are not all in sync. + */ this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, LOADED_MM_SWITCHING); barrier(); } @@ -895,8 +899,16 @@ static void flush_tlb_func(void *info) static bool should_flush_tlb(int cpu, void *data) { + struct mm_struct *loaded_mm = per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, cpu); struct flush_tlb_info *info = data; + /* + * Order the 'loaded_mm' and 'is_lazy' against their + * write ordering in switch_mm_irqs_off(). Ensure + * 'is_lazy' is at least as new as 'loaded_mm'. + */ + smp_rmb(); + /* Lazy TLB will get flushed at the next context switch. */ if (per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate_shared.is_lazy, cpu)) return false; @@ -905,8 +917,15 @@ static bool should_flush_tlb(int cpu, void *data) if (!info->mm) return true; + /* + * While switching, the remote CPU could have state from + * either the prev or next mm. Assume the worst and flush. + */ + if (loaded_mm == LOADED_MM_SWITCHING) + return true; + /* The target mm is loaded, and the CPU is not lazy. */ - if (per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, cpu) == info->mm) + if (loaded_mm == info->mm) return true; /* In cpumask, but not the loaded mm? Periodically remove by flushing. */