On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 08:19:05PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > On 2016/5/24 19:37, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 07:16:37PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > >> When we ran mprotect04(a test case in LTP) infinitely, it would always > >> failed after a few seconds. The case can be described briefly that: copy > >> a empty function from code area into a new memory area(created by mmap), > >> then call mprotect to change the protection to PROT_EXEC. The syscall > >> sys_mprotect will finally invoke flush_cache_range, but this function > >> currently only invalid icache, the operation of flush dcache is missed. > > > > In the LTP code I see powerpc-specific D-cache / I-cache synchronisation > > (i.e. d-cache cleaning followed by I-cache invalidation), so there > > appears to be some expectation of userspace maintenance. Hoever, there > > is no such ARM-specific I-cache maintenance. > > But I see some other platforms have D-cache maintenance, like: > arch/nios2/mm/cacheflush.c > And according to the name of flush_cache_range, it should do this, I judged. > Otherwise, > mprotect04 will be failed on more platforms, it's easy to discover. Only PPC > have specific > cache synchronization, maybe it meets some hardware limitation. It's > impossible a programmer > fixed a common bug on only one platform but leave others unchanged.
flush_cache_range() is primarily used on VIVT caches before changing the mapping and should not really be implemented on arm64. I don't recall why we still have the I-cache invalidation, possibly for the ASID-tagged VIVT I-cache case, though we should have a specific check for this. There are some other cases where flush_cache_range() is called and no D-cache maintenance is necessary on arm64, so I don't want to penalise them by implementing flush_cache_range(). > > It looks like the test may be missing I-cache maintenance regardless of > > the semantics of mprotect in this case. > > > > I have not yet devled into flush_cache_range and how it is called. > > SYSCALL_DEFINE3(mprotect ---> mprotect_fixup ---> change_protection ---> > change_protection_range --> flush_cache_range The change_protection() shouldn't need to flush the caches in flush_cache_range(). The change_pte_range() function eventually ends up calling set_pte_at() which calls __sync_icache_dcache() if the mapping is executable. Can you be more specific about the kernel version you are using, its configuration? -- Catalin