Re: [PATCH] arm64: Clear VTCR_EL2 in __init_el2_stage2()

[Marc Zyngier]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 02:46:44 +0000,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 13/03/26 3:29 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 05:38:57AM +0000, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> Clear VTCR_EL2 along with VTTBR_EL2 register in __init_el2_stage2(), which
> >> ensures that MMU stage-2 translation remain disabled.
> > 
> > As Marc noted, that's not true -- whether stage 2 is enabled is governed
> > entirely by HCR_EL2.VM.
> > > The only reason to initialize VTCR_EL2 here would be if some field in
> > VTCR_EL2 applies when stage 2 is *disabled*.
> 
> Understood. Something similar to VTTBR_EL2.VMID field which
> gets into tagged TLB entries for EL0/EL1 translation regime
> even when stage-2 is not enabled via HCR_EL2_VM.
> 
> But wondering if VTTBR_EL2.VMID gets cleaned up should not
> it also be followed by a "tlbi vmalls12e1 --> dsb --> isb"
> sequence to clear existing stale TLB entries ?

Why? We already have a TLBI VMALLE1 whenever a CPU boots. That's all
we need, and not some random invalidation that serves no purpose as
long as S2 is *off*. When we are about to turn S2 on, we have all the
required invalidation already.

> 
> > 
> >> Although clearing out VTTBR_EL2 probably should have been sufficient
> >> but adding VTCR_EL2 improves overall safety.
> > 
> > It's unhelpful to send patches like this with unclear or non-existent
> > rationale, and vague statements about what the patch might do. Was there
> 
> The commit message could have been more detailed and explicit
> about its rationale. Although the intent here was to ensure
> improved safety during S2 MMU context initialization.
> 
> > some specific reason to send this? e.g.
> > 
> > * Did you have any specific reason to believe that setting some field in
> >   VTCR_EL2 was necessary? e.g. is there some misleading documentation,
> >   or comment elsewhere in the kernel?
> > 
> > * Are you trying to fix some problem you've encountered, but haven't
> >   managed to debug?
> > 
> > * Was this purely from inspection?
> 
> This was from code inspection while navigating S2 MMU context
> initialization and management.

I think you should start by improving your understanding of how S2
works *before* sending random patches.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.