[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200910093925.GB29166@oc3871087118.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:39:25 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
linux-x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-power <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-sparc <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm/gup: fix gup_fast with dynamic page table
folding
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:03:24PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 07:25:34PM +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > I actually had to draw myself a picture to get some hold of
> > this, or rather a walk-through with a certain pud-crossing
> > range in a folded 3-level scenario. Not sure if I would have
> > understood my explanation above w/o that, but I hope you can
> > make some sense out of it. Or draw yourself a picture :-)
>
> What I don't understand is how does anything work with S390 today?
>
> If the fix is only to change pxx_addr_end() then than generic code
> like mm/pagewalk.c will iterate over a *different list* of page table
> entries.
>
> It's choice of entries to look at is entirely driven by pxx_addr_end().
>
> Which suggest to me that mm/pagewalk.c also doesn't work properly
> today on S390 and this issue is not really about stack variables?
>
> Fundamentally if pXX_offset() and pXX_addr_end() must be consistent
> together, if pXX_offset() is folded then pXX_addr_end() must cause a
> single iteration of that level.
Your observation is correct.
Another way to describe the problem is existing pXd_addr_end helpers
could be applied to mismatching levels on s390 (e.g p4d_addr_end
applied to pud or pgd_addr_end applied to p4d). As you noticed,
all *_pXd_range iterators could be called with address ranges that
exceed single pXd table.
However, when it happens with pointers to real page tables (passed to
*_pXd_range iterators) we still operate on valid tables, which just
(lucky for us) happened to be folded. Thus we still reference correct
table entries.
It is only gup_fast case that exposes the issue. It hits because
pointers to stack copies are passed to gup_pXd_range iterators, not
pointers to real page tables itself.
As Gerald mentioned, it is very difficult to explain in a clear way.
Hopefully, one could make sense ot of it.
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists