linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm: userfaultfd: don't pass around both mm and vma

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: <54D49E2C-F2EF-4C1E-AFE9-FD742CEA33EB@vmware.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Mar 2023 01:44:05 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] mm: userfaultfd: don't pass around both mm and vma



> On Mar 6, 2023, at 5:03 PM, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> !! External Email
> 
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 02:50:21PM -0800, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
>> Quite a few userfaultfd functions took both mm and vma pointers as
>> arguments. Since the mm is trivially accessible via vma->vm_mm, there's
>> no reason to pass both; it just needlessly extends the already long
>> argument list.
>> 
>> Get rid of the mm pointer, where possible, to shorten the argument list.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> 
> One nit below:
> 
>> @@ -6277,7 +6276,7 @@ int hugetlb_mfill_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
>>              folio_in_pagecache = true;
>>      }
>> 
>> -     ptl = huge_pte_lock(h, dst_mm, dst_pte);
>> +     ptl = huge_pte_lock(h, dst_vma->vm_mm, dst_pte);
>> 
>>      ret = -EIO;
>>      if (folio_test_hwpoison(folio))
>> @@ -6319,9 +6318,9 @@ int hugetlb_mfill_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
>>      if (wp_copy)
>>              _dst_pte = huge_pte_mkuffd_wp(_dst_pte);
>> 
>> -     set_huge_pte_at(dst_mm, dst_addr, dst_pte, _dst_pte);
>> +     set_huge_pte_at(dst_vma->vm_mm, dst_addr, dst_pte, _dst_pte);
>> 
>> -     hugetlb_count_add(pages_per_huge_page(h), dst_mm);
>> +     hugetlb_count_add(pages_per_huge_page(h), dst_vma->vm_mm);
> 
> When vm_mm referenced multiple times (say, >=3?), let's still cache it in a
> temp var?
> 
> I'm not sure whether compiler is smart enough to already do that with a
> reg, even if so it may slightly improve readability too, imho, by avoiding
> the multiple but same indirection for the reader.

I am not sure if you referred to this code specifically or in general. I once
looked into it, and the compiler is really stupid in this regard and super
conservative when it comes to aliasing. Even if you use “restrict” keyword or
“__pure” or “__const” function attributes, in certain cases (function calls
to other compilation units, or inline assembly - I don’t remember) the
compiler might ignore them. Worse, llvm and gcc are inconsistent.

From code-generated perspective, I did not see a clear cut that benefits
caching over not. From performance perspective the impact is negligible. I
mention all of that because I thought it matters too, but it mostly does
not.

That’s all to say that in most cases, I think that whatever makes the code
more readable should be preferred. I think that you are correct in saying
that “caching” it will make the code more readable, but performance-wise
it is probably meaningless.