[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201123142237.GF17833@gaia>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:22:37 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: pgtable: Ensure dirty bit is preserved across
pte_wrprotect()
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:35:53PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> With hardware dirty bit management, calling pte_wrprotect() on a writable,
> dirty PTE will lose the dirty state and return a read-only, clean entry.
My assumption at the time was that the caller of pte_wrprotect() already
moved the 'dirty' information to the underlying page. Most
pte_wrprotect() calls also do a pte_mkclean(). However, it doesn't seem
to always be the case (soft-dirty but we don't support it yet).
I was worried that we may inadvertently set the dirty bit when doing a
pte_wrprotect() on a freshly created pte (not read from memory, for
example __split_huge_pmd_locked()) but I think all our __P* and __S*
attributes start with a PTE_RDONLY, therefore the pte_hw_dirty() returns
false. A test for mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c, something like:
for (i = 0, i < ARRAY_SIZE(protection_map); i++) {
pte = pfn_pte(pfn, protection_map(i));
WARN_ON(pte_dirty(pte_wrprotect(pte));
}
(I'll leave this to Anshuman ;))
> Move the logic from ptep_set_wrprotect() into pte_wrprotect() to ensure that
> the dirty bit is preserved for writable entries, as this is required for
> soft-dirty bit management if we enable it in the future.
>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
I think this could go back as far as the hardware AF/DBM support (v4.3):
Fixes: 2f4b829c625e ("arm64: Add support for hardware updates of the access and dirty pte bits")
If you limit this fix to 4.14, you probably don't need additional
commits. Otherwise, at least this one:
3bbf7157ac66 ("arm64: Convert pte handling from inline asm to using (cmp)xchg")
and a slightly more intrusive:
73e86cb03cf2 ("arm64: Move PTE_RDONLY bit handling out of set_pte_at()")
We also had some attempts at fixing ptep_set_wrprotect():
64c26841b349 ("arm64: Ignore hardware dirty bit updates in ptep_set_wrprotect()")
Fixed subsequently by:
8781bcbc5e69 ("arm64: mm: Fix pte_mkclean, pte_mkdirty semantics")
I have a hope that at some point we'll understand how this all works ;).
For this patch:
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists