[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9be77e7e-4531-4e1c-9e0d-4edbb5ad3bd5@lucifer.local>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 14:13:39 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] mm/gup: remove vmas parameter from
get_user_pages_remote()
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:09:36AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 12:27:31AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > The only instances of get_user_pages_remote() invocations which used the
> > vmas parameter were for a single page which can instead simply look up the
> > VMA directly. In particular:-
> >
> > - __update_ref_ctr() looked up the VMA but did nothing with it so we simply
> > remove it.
> >
> > - __access_remote_vm() was already using vma_lookup() when the original
> > lookup failed so by doing the lookup directly this also de-duplicates the
> > code.
> >
> > This forms part of a broader set of patches intended to eliminate the vmas
> > parameter altogether.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c | 5 +++--
> > arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 2 +-
> > fs/exec.c | 2 +-
> > include/linux/mm.h | 2 +-
> > kernel/events/uprobes.c | 10 +++++-----
> > mm/gup.c | 12 ++++--------
> > mm/memory.c | 9 +++++----
> > mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
> > security/tomoyo/domain.c | 2 +-
> > virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 3 +--
> > 10 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> > index f5bcb0dc6267..74d8d4007dec 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
> > @@ -437,8 +437,9 @@ static int __access_remote_tags(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> > struct page *page = NULL;
> >
> > ret = get_user_pages_remote(mm, addr, 1, gup_flags, &page,
> > - &vma, NULL);
> > - if (ret <= 0)
> > + NULL);
> > + vma = vma_lookup(mm, addr);
> > + if (ret <= 0 || !vma)
> > break;
>
> Given the slightly tricky error handling, it would make sense to turn
> this pattern into a helper function:
>
> page = get_single_user_page_locked(mm, addr, gup_flags, &vma);
> if (IS_ERR(page))
> [..]
>
> static inline struct page *get_single_user_page_locked(struct mm_struct *mm,
> unsigned long addr, int gup_flags, struct vm_area_struct **vma)
> {
> struct page *page;
> int ret;
>
> ret = get_user_pages_remote(*mm, addr, 1, gup_flags, &page, NULL, NULL);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ERR_PTR(ret);
> if (WARN_ON(ret == 0))
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> *vma = vma_lookup(mm, addr);
> if (WARN_ON(!*vma) {
> put_user_page(page);
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> }
> return page;
> }
>
> It could be its own patch so this change was just a mechanical removal
> of NULL
>
> Jason
>
Agreed, I think this would work better as a follow up patch however so as
not to distract too much from the core change. I feel like there are quite
a few things we can follow up on including assessing whether we might be
able to use _fast() paths in places (I haven't assessed this yet).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists