linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 11/26] microblaze/mm: support __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP

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: <c145a2db-f92c-65aa-3e68-07dbb2e097a6@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 18:01:00 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, openrisc@...ts.librecores.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 11/26] microblaze/mm: support
 __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE

>>>>    /*
>>>>     * Externally used page protection values.
>>>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> index 42f5988e998b..7e3de54bf426 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>>> @@ -131,10 +131,10 @@ extern pte_t *va_to_pte(unsigned long address);
>>>>     * of the 16 available.  Bit 24-26 of the TLB are cleared in the TLB
>>>>     * miss handler.  Bit 27 is PAGE_USER, thus selecting the correct
>>>>     * zone.
>>>> - * - PRESENT *must* be in the bottom two bits because swap cache
>>>> - * entries use the top 30 bits.  Because 4xx doesn't support SMP
>>>> - * anyway, M is irrelevant so we borrow it for PAGE_PRESENT.  Bit 30
>>>> - * is cleared in the TLB miss handler before the TLB entry is loaded.
>>>> + * - PRESENT *must* be in the bottom two bits because swap PTEs use the top
>>>> + * 30 bits.  Because 4xx doesn't support SMP anyway, M is irrelevant so we
>>>> + * borrow it for PAGE_PRESENT.  Bit 30 is cleared in the TLB miss handler
>>>> + * before the TLB entry is loaded.
>>>
>>> So the PowerPC 4xx comment is still here?
>>
>> I only dropped the comment above __swp_type(). I guess you mean that we
>> could also drop the "Because 4xx doesn't support SMP anyway, M is
>> irrelevant so we borrow it for PAGE_PRESENT." sentence, correct? Not
> 
> Yes, that's what I meant.
> 
>> sure about the "Bit 30 is cleared in the TLB miss handler" comment, if
>> that can similarly be dropped.
> 
> No idea, didn't check. But if it was copied from PPC, chances are
> high it's no longer true....

I'll have a look.

> 
>>>>     * - All other bits of the PTE are loaded into TLBLO without
>>>>     *  * modification, leaving us only the bits 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30 for
>>>>     * software PTE bits.  We actually use bits 21, 24, 25, and
>>>> @@ -155,6 +155,9 @@ extern pte_t *va_to_pte(unsigned long address);
>>>>    #define _PAGE_ACCESSED 0x400   /* software: R: page referenced */
>>>>    #define _PMD_PRESENT   PAGE_MASK
>>>>
>>>> +/* We borrow bit 24 to store the exclusive marker in swap PTEs. */
>>>> +#define _PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE    _PAGE_DIRTY
>>>
>>> _PAGE_DIRTY is 0x80, so this is also bit 7, thus the new comment is
>>> wrong?
>>
>> In the example, I use MSB-0 bit numbering (which I determined to be
>> correct in microblaze context eventually, but I got confused a couple a
>> times because it's very inconsistent). That should be MSB-0 bit 24.
> 
> Thanks, TIL microblaze uses IBM bit numbering...

I assume IBM bit numbering corresponds to MSB-0 bit numbering, correct?


I recall that I used the comment above "/* Definitions for MicroBlaze. 
*/" as an orientation.

0  1  2  3  4  ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
RPN.....................  0  0 EX WR ZSEL.......  W  I  M  G


So ... either we adjust both or we leave it as is. (again, depends on 
what the right thing to to is -- which I don't know :) )

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb