linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/hmm/test: add self tests for HMM

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]

Message-ID: <a6b49a4e-a194-ce0b-685f-5e597072aeee@nvidia.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:28:12 -0700
From:   Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
CC:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/hmm/test: add self tests for HMM



On 10/31/19 5:42 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:14:30PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> 
>>> Well, that is good, is it also under drivers/char? It kind feels like
>>> it should not be there...
>>
>> I think most of the test modules live in lib/ but I wasn't sure that
>> was the right place for the HMM test driver.
>> If you think that is better, I can easily move it.
> 
> It would be good to get the various test people involved in this, I
> really don't know.

OK.
  
>>>>> It seems especially over-complicated to use a full page table layout
>>>>> for this, wouldn't something simple like an xarray be good enough for
>>>>> test purposes?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly. A page table is really just a lookup table from virtual address
>>>> to pfn/page. Part of the rationale was to mimic what a real device
>>>> might do.
>>>
>>> Well, but the details of the page table layout don't see really
>>> important to this testing, IMHO.
>>
>> One problem with XArray is that on 32-bit machines the value would
>> need to be u64 to hold a pfn which won't fit in a ULONG_MAX.
>> I guess we could make the driver 64-bit only.
> 
> Why would a 32 bit machine need a 64 bit pfn?
> 
> Jason
> 

On x86, Physical Address Extension (PAE) uses a 64 bit PTE.
See arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_32_types.h which includes
arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable-3level_types.h.