linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH hmm 5/5] mm/hmm: remove the customizable pfn format from hmm_range

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: <20200422123911.GV26002@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:39:11 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        "David (ChunMing) Zhou" <David1.Zhou@....com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        "Kuehling, Felix" <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@...el.com>,
        nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH hmm 5/5] mm/hmm: remove the customizable pfn format from
 hmm_range_fault

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 08:03:29AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 09:21:46PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > +void nouveau_hmm_convert_pfn(struct nouveau_drm *drm, struct hmm_range *range,
> > +			     u64 *ioctl_addr)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long i, npages;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The ioctl_addr prepared here is passed through nvif_object_ioctl()
> > +	 * to an eventual DMA map on some call chain like:
> > +	 *    nouveau_svm_fault():
> > +	 *      args.i.m.method = NVIF_VMM_V0_PFNMAP
> > +	 *      nouveau_range_fault()
> > +	 *       nvif_object_ioctl()
> > +	 *        client->driver->ioctl()
> > +	 *           struct nvif_driver nvif_driver_nvkm:
> > +	 *             .ioctl = nvkm_client_ioctl
> > +	 *            nvkm_ioctl()
> > +	 *             nvkm_ioctl_path()
> > +	 *               nvkm_ioctl_v0[type].func(..)
> > +	 *               nvkm_ioctl_mthd()
> > +	 *                nvkm_object_mthd()
> > +	 *                   struct nvkm_object_func nvkm_uvmm:
> > +	 *                     .mthd = nvkm_uvmm_mthd
> > +	 *                    nvkm_uvmm_mthd()
> > +	 *                     nvkm_uvmm_mthd_pfnmap()
> > +	 *                      nvkm_vmm_pfn_map()
> > +	 *                       nvkm_vmm_ptes_get_map()
> > +	 *                        func == gp100_vmm_pgt_pfn
> > +	 *                         struct nvkm_vmm_desc_func gp100_vmm_desc_spt:
> > +	 *                           .pfn = gp100_vmm_pgt_pfn
> > +	 *                          nvkm_vmm_iter()
> > +	 *                           REF_PTES == func == gp100_vmm_pgt_pfn()
> > +	 *			      dma_map_page()
> > +	 *
> > +	 * This is all just encoding the internal hmm reprensetation into a
> > +	 * different nouveau internal representation.
> > +	 */
> 
> Nice callchain from hell..  Unfortunately such "code listings" tend to
> get out of date very quickly, so I'm not sure it is worth keeping in
> the code.  What would be really worthile is consolidating the two
> different sets of defines (NVIF_VMM_PFNMAP_V0_ vs NVKM_VMM_PFN_)
> to make the code a little easier to follow.

I was mainly concerned that this function is using hmm properly,
becuase it sure looks like it is just forming the CPU physical address
into a HW specific data. But it turns out it is just an internal data
for some other code and the dma_map is impossibly far away

It took forever to find, I figured I'd leave a hint for the next poor
soul that has to look at this.. 

Also, I think it shows there is no 'performance' argument here, if
this path needs more performance the above should be cleaned
before we abuse hmm_range_fault.

Put it in the commit message instead?

> >  	npages = (range->end - range->start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >  	for (i = 0; i < npages; ++i) {
> >  		struct page *page;
> >  
> > +		if (!(range->hmm_pfns[i] & HMM_PFN_VALID)) {
> > +			ioctl_addr[i] = 0;
> >  			continue;
> > +		}
> 
> Can't we rely on the caller pre-zeroing the array?

This ends up as args.phys in nouveau_svm_fault - I didn't see a
zeroing?

I think it makes sense that this routine fully sets the output array
and does not assume pre-initialize

> > +		page = hmm_pfn_to_page(range->hmm_pfns[i]);
> > +		if (is_device_private_page(page))
> > +			ioctl_addr[i] = nouveau_dmem_page_addr(page) |
> > +					NVIF_VMM_PFNMAP_V0_V |
> > +					NVIF_VMM_PFNMAP_V0_VRAM;
> > +		else
> > +			ioctl_addr[i] = page_to_phys(page) |
> > +					NVIF_VMM_PFNMAP_V0_V |
> > +					NVIF_VMM_PFNMAP_V0_HOST;
> > +		if (range->hmm_pfns[i] & HMM_PFN_WRITE)
> > +			ioctl_addr[i] |= NVIF_VMM_PFNMAP_V0_W;
> 
> Now that this routine isn't really device memory specific any more, I
> wonder if it should move to nouveau_svm.c.

Yes, if we expose nouveau_dmem_page_addr(), I will try it

Thanks,
Jason