lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:31:03 +0100 From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> Cc: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@....com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, rcampbell@...dia.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, jglisse@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/10] mm: add zone device coherent type memory support On 16.02.22 03:36, Alistair Popple wrote: > On Wednesday, 16 February 2022 1:03:57 PM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:23:44PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote: >> >>> Device private and device coherent pages are not marked with pte_devmap and they >>> are backed by a struct page. The only way of inserting them is via migrate_vma. >>> The refcount is decremented in zap_pte_range() on munmap() with special handling >>> for device private pages. Looking at it again though I wonder if there is any >>> special treatment required in zap_pte_range() for device coherent pages given >>> they count as present pages. >> >> This is what I guessed, but we shouldn't be able to just drop >> pte_devmap on these pages without any other work?? Granted it does >> very little already.. > > Yes, I agree we need to check this more closely. For device private pages > not having pte_devmap is fine, because they are non-present swap entries so > they always get special handling in the swap entry paths but the same isn't > true for coherent device pages. I'm curious, how does the refcount of a PageAnon() DEVICE_COHERENT page look like when mapped? I'd assume it's also (currently) still offset by one, meaning, if it's mapped into a single page table it's always at least 2. Just a note that if my assumption is correct and if we'd have such a page mapped R/O, do_wp_page() would always have to copy it unconditionally and would not be able to reuse it on write faults. (while I'm working on improving the reuse logic, I think there is also work in progress to avoid this additional reference on some ZONE_DEVICE stuff -- I'd assume that would include DEVICE_COHERENT ?) > >> I thought at least gup_fast needed to be touched or did this get >> handled by scanning the page list after the fact? > > Right, for gup I think the only special handling required is to prevent > pinning. I had assumed that check_and_migrate_movable_pages() would still get > called for gup_fast but unless I've missed something I don't think it does. > That means gup_fast could still pin movable and coherent pages. Technically > that is ok for coherent pages, but it's undesirable. We really should have the same pinning rules for GUP vs. GUP-fast. is_pinnable_page() should be the right place for such checks (similarly as indicated in my reply to the migration series). -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists