linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] mm/gup: fix gup_fast with dynamic page table folding

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: <9bde9857-fdfd-e384-ea27-a14e5a06f1e6@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 07:22:39 +0200
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linux-sparc <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        linux-x86 <x86@...nel.org>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-power <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] mm/gup: fix gup_fast with dynamic page table
 folding



Le 07/09/2020 à 22:12, Mike Rapoport a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 08:00:55PM +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
>> This is v2 of an RFC previously discussed here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200828140314.8556-1-gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com/
>>
>> Patch 1 is a fix for a regression in gup_fast on s390, after our conversion
>> to common gup_fast code. It will introduce special helper functions
>> pXd_addr_end_folded(), which have to be used in places where pagetable walk
>> is done w/o lock and with READ_ONCE, so currently only in gup_fast.
>>
>> Patch 2 is an attempt to make that more generic, i.e. change pXd_addr_end()
>> themselves by adding an extra pXd value parameter. That was suggested by
>> Jason during v1 discussion, because he is already thinking of some other
>> places where he might want to switch to the READ_ONCE logic for pagetable
>> walks. In general, that would be the cleanest / safest solution, but there
>> is some impact on other architectures and common code, hence the new and
>> greatly enlarged recipient list.
>>
>> Patch 3 is a "nice to have" add-on, which makes pXd_addr_end() inline
>> functions instead of #defines, so that we get some type checking for the
>> new pXd value parameter.
>>
>> Not sure about Fixes/stable tags for the generic solution. Only patch 1
>> fixes a real bug on s390, and has Fixes/stable tags. Patches 2 + 3 might
>> still be nice to have in stable, to ease future backports, but I guess
>> "nice to have" does not really qualify for stable backports.
> 
> I also think that adding pXd parameter to pXd_addr_end() is a cleaner
> way and with this patch 1 is not really required. I would even merge
> patches 2 and 3 into a single patch and use only it as the fix.

Why not merging patches 2 and 3, but I would keep patch 1 separate but 
after the generic changes, so that we first do the generic changes, then 
we do the specific S390 use of it.

Christophe