linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm: ioremap: fixup the physical address and page prot

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: <8df89136-a7f2-9b66-d522-a4fb9860bf22@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 19:03:12 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "agordeev@...ux.ibm.com" <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com" <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] mm: ioremap: fixup the physical address and page
 prot



Le 23/08/2022 à 14:32, Baoquan He a écrit :
> On 08/23/22 at 05:33am, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 23/08/2022 à 03:19, Baoquan He a écrit :
>>> On 08/22/22 at 06:30am, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 20/08/2022 à 02:31, Baoquan He a écrit :
>>>>> On some architectures, the physical address need be fixed up before
>>>>> doing mapping, e.g, parisc. And on architectures, e.g arc, the
>>>>> parameter 'prot' passed into ioremap_prot() need be adjusted too.
>>>>>
>>>>> In oder to convert them to take GENERIC_IOREMAP method, we need wrap
>>>>> the address fixing up code and page prot adjusting code into arch_ioremap()
>>>>> and pass the new address and 'prot' out for ioremap_prot() handling.
>>>>
>>>> Is it really the best approach ? Wouldn't it be better to have helpers
>>>> to do that, those helpers being called by the ioremap_prot(), instead of
>>>> doing it inside the arch_ioremap() function ?
>>>
>>> This is suggested too by Alexander during his v1 reviewing. I tried, but
>>> feel the current way taken in this patchset is better. Because not all
>>> architecutres need the address fix up, only parisc, and only few need
>>> adjust the 'prot'. Introducing other helpers seems too much, that only
>>> increases the complexity of of ioremap() and the generic GENERIC_IOREMAP
>>> method for people to understand and take.
>>
>> I can't understand. Why is it difficult to do something like:
>>
>> #ifndef ioremap_adjust_prot
>> static inline unsigned long ioremap_adjust_prot(unsigned long flags)
>> {
>> 	return flags;
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> Then for arc you do
>>
>> static inline unsigned long ioremap_adjust_prot(unsigned long flags)
>> {
>> 	return pgprot_val(pgprot_noncached(__pgprot(flags)));
>> }
>> #define ioremap_adjust_prot ioremap_adjust_prot
> 
> My thinking is we have four things to do in the added hookers.
> 1) check if we should do ioremap on ARCHes. If not, return NULL from
> ioremap_prot();
> 2) handling the mapping io address specifically on ARCHes, e.g arc,
> ia64, s390;
> 3) the original physical address passed into ioremap_prot() need be
> fixed up, e.g arc;
> 4) the 'prot' passed into ioremap_prot() need be adjusted, e.g on arc
> and xtensa.
> 
> With Kefeng's patches, the case 1) is handled with introduced
> ioremap_allowed()/iounmap_allowed(). In this patchset, what I do is
> rename the hooks as arch_ioremap() and arch_iounmap(), then put case 1),
> 2), 3), 4) handling into arch_ioremap(). Adding helpers to cover each
> case is not difficult from my side. I worry that as time goes by, those
> several hooks my cause issue, e.g if a new adjustment need be done,
> should we introduce a new helper or make do with the existed hook; how
> 
> When I investigated this, one arch_ioremap() looks not complicated
> since not all ARCHes need cover all above 4 cases. That's why I finally
> choose one hook. I am open to new idea, please let me know if we should
> change it to introduce several different helpers.
> 

A new idea that would have my preference would be to do just like we did 
with arch_get_unmapped_area(). Look at 
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc1/source/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/slice.c#L638 
and https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.0-rc1/source/mm/mmap.c#L2131

Instead of having the generic that calls the arch specific, make it the 
other way round, have the arch specific call the generic after doing its 
specialties.

>>
>>
>> By the way, could be a good opportunity to change ioremap_prot() flags
>> type from unsigned long to pgprot_t
> 
> Tend to agree, I will give it a shot.
>