| 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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130206014110.GA4325@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:41:11 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: mm: use static_vm for managing static mapped
areas
Hello, Nicolas.
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:44:16PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > A static mapped area is ARM-specific, so it is better not to use
> > generic vmalloc data structure, that is, vmlist and vmlist_lock
> > for managing static mapped area. And it causes some needless overhead and
> > reducing this overhead is better idea.
> >
> > Now, we have newly introduced static_vm infrastructure.
> > With it, we don't need to iterate all mapped areas. Instead, we just
> > iterate static mapped areas. It helps to reduce an overhead of finding
> > matched area. And architecture dependency on vmalloc layer is removed,
> > so it will help to maintainability for vmalloc layer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
>
> Some comments below.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c b/arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c
> > index 904c15e..c7fef4b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/ioremap.c
> > @@ -261,13 +261,14 @@ void __iomem * __arm_ioremap_pfn_caller(unsigned long pfn,
> > const struct mem_type *type;
> > int err;
> > unsigned long addr;
> > - struct vm_struct * area;
> > + struct vm_struct *area;
> > + phys_addr_t paddr = __pfn_to_phys(pfn);
> >
> > #ifndef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
> > /*
> > * High mappings must be supersection aligned
> > */
> > - if (pfn >= 0x100000 && (__pfn_to_phys(pfn) & ~SUPERSECTION_MASK))
> > + if (pfn >= 0x100000 && (paddr & ~SUPERSECTION_MASK))
> > return NULL;
> > #endif
> >
> > @@ -283,24 +284,16 @@ void __iomem * __arm_ioremap_pfn_caller(unsigned long pfn,
> > /*
> > * Try to reuse one of the static mapping whenever possible.
> > */
> > - read_lock(&vmlist_lock);
> > - for (area = vmlist; area; area = area->next) {
> > - if (!size || (sizeof(phys_addr_t) == 4 && pfn >= 0x100000))
> > - break;
> > - if (!(area->flags & VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING))
> > - continue;
> > - if ((area->flags & VM_ARM_MTYPE_MASK) != VM_ARM_MTYPE(mtype))
> > - continue;
> > - if (__phys_to_pfn(area->phys_addr) > pfn ||
> > - __pfn_to_phys(pfn) + size-1 > area->phys_addr + area->size-1)
> > - continue;
> > - /* we can drop the lock here as we know *area is static */
> > - read_unlock(&vmlist_lock);
> > - addr = (unsigned long)area->addr;
> > - addr += __pfn_to_phys(pfn) - area->phys_addr;
> > - return (void __iomem *) (offset + addr);
> > + if (size && !((sizeof(phys_addr_t) == 4 && pfn >= 0x100000))) {
> ^ ^
> You have a needless extra set of parents here.
Okay.
> [...]
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > index ce328c7..b2c0356 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > @@ -757,21 +757,24 @@ void __init iotable_init(struct map_desc *io_desc, int nr)
> > {
> > struct map_desc *md;
> > struct vm_struct *vm;
> > + struct static_vm *svm;
> >
> > if (!nr)
> > return;
> >
> > - vm = early_alloc_aligned(sizeof(*vm) * nr, __alignof__(*vm));
> > + svm = early_alloc_aligned(sizeof(*svm) * nr, __alignof__(*svm));
> >
> > for (md = io_desc; nr; md++, nr--) {
> > create_mapping(md);
> > +
> > + vm = &svm->vm;
> > vm->addr = (void *)(md->virtual & PAGE_MASK);
> > vm->size = PAGE_ALIGN(md->length + (md->virtual & ~PAGE_MASK));
> > vm->phys_addr = __pfn_to_phys(md->pfn);
> > vm->flags = VM_IOREMAP | VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING;
> > vm->flags |= VM_ARM_MTYPE(md->type);
> > vm->caller = iotable_init;
> > - vm_area_add_early(vm++);
> > + add_static_vm_early(svm++);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -779,13 +782,16 @@ void __init vm_reserve_area_early(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
> > void *caller)
> > {
> > struct vm_struct *vm;
> > + struct static_vm *svm;
> > +
> > + svm = early_alloc_aligned(sizeof(*svm), __alignof__(*svm));
> >
> > - vm = early_alloc_aligned(sizeof(*vm), __alignof__(*vm));
> > + vm = &svm->vm;
> > vm->addr = (void *)addr;
> > vm->size = size;
> > vm->flags = VM_IOREMAP | VM_ARM_EMPTY_MAPPING;
> > vm->caller = caller;
> > - vm_area_add_early(vm);
> > + add_static_vm_early(svm);
> > }
> >
> > #ifndef CONFIG_ARM_LPAE
> > @@ -810,14 +816,13 @@ static void __init pmd_empty_section_gap(unsigned long addr)
> >
> > static void __init fill_pmd_gaps(void)
> > {
> > + struct static_vm *svm;
> > struct vm_struct *vm;
> > unsigned long addr, next = 0;
> > pmd_t *pmd;
> >
> > - /* we're still single threaded hence no lock needed here */
> > - for (vm = vmlist; vm; vm = vm->next) {
> > - if (!(vm->flags & (VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING | VM_ARM_EMPTY_MAPPING)))
> > - continue;
> > + list_for_each_entry(svm, &static_vmlist, list) {
> > + vm = &svm->vm;
> > addr = (unsigned long)vm->addr;
> > if (addr < next)
> > continue;
> > @@ -859,17 +864,12 @@ static void __init pci_reserve_io(void)
> > {
> > struct vm_struct *vm;
> > unsigned long addr;
> > + struct static_vm *svm;
> >
> > - /* we're still single threaded hence no lock needed here */
> > - for (vm = vmlist; vm; vm = vm->next) {
> > - if (!(vm->flags & VM_ARM_STATIC_MAPPING))
> > - continue;
> > - addr = (unsigned long)vm->addr;
> > - addr &= ~(SZ_2M - 1);
> > - if (addr == PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE)
> > - return;
> > + svm = find_static_vm_vaddr((void *)PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE);
> > + if (svm)
> > + return;
> >
> > - }
> >
> > vm_reserve_area_early(PCI_IO_VIRT_BASE, SZ_2M, pci_reserve_io);
> > }
>
> The replacement code is not equivalent. I can't recall why the original
> is as it is, but it doesn't look right to me. The 2MB round down
> certainly looks suspicious.
>
> The replacement code should be better. However I'd like you to get an
> ACK from Rob Herring as well for this patch.
>
> Once that is sorted out, you can add
>
> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>
Okay. I will fix this and re-send it with your "Reviewed-by".
Thanks.
>
> Nicolas
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists