Re: [Xen-devel] xen/arm and swiotlb-xen: possible data corruption

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

On 02/03/2017 23:07, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 02:39:55PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > Hi Stefano,
> > > >
> > > > On 02/03/17 19:12, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > On 02/03/17 08:53, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 09:38:37AM +0100, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:05:21PM -0800, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > Julien, from looking at the two diffs, this is simpler and nicer, but if
> > > > > you look at xen/include/asm-arm/page.h, my patch made
> > > > > clean_dcache_va_range consistent with invalidate_dcache_va_range. For
> > > > > consistency, I would prefer to deal with the two functions the same way.
> > > > > Although it is not a spec requirement, I also think that it is a good
> > > > > idea to issue cache flushes from cacheline aligned addresses, like
> > > > > invalidate_dcache_va_range does and Linux does, to make more obvious
> > > > > what is going on.
> > > > invalid_dcache_va_range is split because the cache instruction differs for the
> > > > start and end if unaligned. For them you want to use clean & invalidate rather
> > > > than invalidate.
> > > >
> > > > If you look at the implementation of other cache helpers in Linux (see
> > > > dcache_by_line_op in arch/arm64/include/asm/assembler.h), they will only align
> > > > start & end.
> > > I don't think so, unless I am reading dcache_by_line_op wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also, the invalid_dcache_va_range is using modulo which I would rather avoid.
> > > > The modulo in this case will not be optimized by the compiler because
> > > > cacheline_bytes is not a constant.
> > > That is a good point. What if I replace the modulo op with
> > >
> > >   p & (cacheline_bytes - 1)
> > >
> > > in invalidate_dcache_va_range, then add the similar code to
> > > clean_dcache_va_range and clean_and_invalidate_dcache_va_range?
> >
> > Yeah, if there was some kind of generic ALIGN or ROUND_DOWN macro we could do:
> >
> > --- a/xen/include/asm-arm/page.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/asm-arm/page.h
> > @@ -325,7 +325,9 @@ static inline int clean_dcache_va_range(const void *p, 
> > unsigned long size)
> >  {
> >      const void *end;
> >      dsb(sy);           /* So the CPU issues all writes to the range */
> > -    for ( end = p + size; p < end; p += cacheline_bytes )
> > +
> > +    p = (void *)ALIGN((uintptr_t)p, cacheline_bytes);
> > +    end = (void *)ROUNDUP((uintptr_t)p + size, cacheline_bytes);
> Even simpler:
>
>    end = p + size;
>    p = (void *)ALIGN((uintptr_t)p, cacheline_bytes);
We don't have any ALIGN macro in Xen and the way we use the term align 
in xen is very similar to ROUNDUP.
However a simple p = (void *)((uintptr_t)p & ~(cacheline_bytes - 1)) 
should work here.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel