Re: [PATCH 1/3] MIPS: c-r4k: instruction_hazard should immediately follow cache op

[James Hogan]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 11:16:02AM +0000, Matt Redfearn wrote:
> During ftrace initialisation, placeholder instructions in the prologue
> of every kernel function not marked "notrace" are replaced with nops.
> After the instructions are written (to the dcache), flush_icache_range()
> is used to ensure that the icache will be updated with these replaced
> instructions. Currently there is an instruction_hazard guard at the end
> of __r4k_flush_icache_range, since a hazard can be created if the CPU
> has already begun fetching the instructions that have have been
> replaced. The placement, however, ignores the calls to preempt_enable(),
> both in __r4k_flush_icache_range and r4k_on_each_cpu. When
> CONFIG_PREEMPT is enabled, these expand out to at least calls to
> preempt_count_sub(). The lack of an instruction hazard between icache
> invalidate and the execution of preempt_count_sub, in rare
> circumstances, was observed to cause weird crashes on Ci40, where the
> CPU would end up taking a kernel unaligned access exception from the
> middle of do_ade(), which it somehow reached from preempt_count_sub
> without executing the start of do_ade.
> 
> Since the instruction hazard exists immediately after the dcache is
> written back and icache invalidated, place the instruction_hazard()
> within __local_r4k_flush_icache_range. The one at the end of
> __r4k_flush_icache_range is too late, since all of the functions in the
> call path of preempt_enable have already been executed, so remove it.
> 
> This fixes the crashes during ftrace initialisation on Ci40.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matt Redfearn <matt.redfearn@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.9+
> 
> ---
> 
>  arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> index 6f534b209971..ce7a54223504 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c
> @@ -760,6 +760,8 @@ static inline void __local_r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start,
>  			break;
>  		}
>  	}
> +	/* Hazard to force new i-fetch */
> +	instruction_hazard();

By the sounds of it that is a hardware bug, that it didn't try and
execute either the old instruction or the new instruction. Maybe an
expanded comment would be worthwhile here. If it wasn't for that issue
it would I suppose be safe for it to be directly before the
preempt_enable() in __r4k_flush_icache_range().

Cheers
James

>  }
>  
>  static inline void local_r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start,
> @@ -817,7 +819,6 @@ static void __r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>  	}
>  	r4k_on_each_cpu(args.type, local_r4k_flush_icache_range_ipi, &args);
>  	preempt_enable();
> -	instruction_hazard();
>  }
>  
>  static void r4k_flush_icache_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>