linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] mm: pagewalk: Don't split transhuge pmds when a pmd

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 18:20:21 +0200
From:   Thomas Hellström (VMware) 
        <thomas_os@...pmail.org>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] mm: pagewalk: Don't split transhuge pmds when a
 pmd_entry is present

Hi, Kirill.

Thanks for reviewing.

On 10/9/19 5:27 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 11:15:02AM +0200, Thomas Hellström (VMware) wrote:
>> From: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
>>
>> The pagewalk code was unconditionally splitting transhuge pmds when a
>> pte_entry was present. However ideally we'd want to handle transhuge pmds
>> in the pmd_entry function and ptes in pte_entry function. So don't split
>> huge pmds when there is a pmd_entry function present, but let the callback
>> take care of it if necessary.
> Do we have any current user that expect split_huge_pmd() in this scenario.

No. All current users either have pmd_entry (no splitting) or pte_entry 
(unconditional splitting)

>
>> In order to make sure a virtual address range is handled by one and only
>> one callback, and since pmd entries may be unstable, we introduce a
>> pmd_entry return code that tells the walk code to continue processing this
>> pmd entry rather than to move on. Since caller-defined positive return
>> codes (up to 2) are used by current callers, use a high value that allows a
>> large range of positive caller-defined return codes for future users.
>>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>> Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>
>> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/pagewalk.h |  8 ++++++++
>>   mm/pagewalk.c            | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>   2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pagewalk.h b/include/linux/pagewalk.h
>> index bddd9759bab9..c4a013eb445d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pagewalk.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pagewalk.h
>> @@ -4,6 +4,11 @@
>>   
>>   #include <linux/mm.h>
>>   
>> +/* Highest positive pmd_entry caller-specific return value */
>> +#define PAGE_WALK_CALLER_MAX     (INT_MAX / 2)
>> +/* The handler did not handle the entry. Fall back to the next level */
>> +#define PAGE_WALK_FALLBACK       (PAGE_WALK_CALLER_MAX + 1)
>> +
> That's hacky.
>
> Maybe just use an error code for this? -EAGAIN?

I agree this is hacky. But IMO it's a reasonably safe option. My 
thinking was that in the long run we'd move the positive return codes to 
the mm_walk private and introduce a PAGE_WALK_TERMINATE code as well.

Perhaps a completely clean and safe way would be to add an "int 
walk_control" in the struct mm_walk?

I'm pretty sure using an error code will come back and bite us at some 
point, if someone just blindly forwards error messages. But if you 
insist, I'll use -EAGAIN.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Thomas