[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5554cd1-417a-aa6a-5e5e-f4f5f773dda@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 20:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.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-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/23] x86: Allow get_locked_pte() to fail
On Wed, 10 May 2023, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 10:08:37PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > In rare transient cases, not yet made possible, pte_offset_map() and
> > pte_offset_map_lock() may not find a page table: handle appropriately.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c b/arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c
> > index 525876e7b9f4..eb844549cd83 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c
> > @@ -367,8 +367,10 @@ static void unmap_ldt_struct(struct mm_struct *mm, struct ldt_struct *ldt)
> >
> > va = (unsigned long)ldt_slot_va(ldt->slot) + offset;
> > ptep = get_locked_pte(mm, va, &ptl);
> > - pte_clear(mm, va, ptep);
> > - pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
> > + if (ptep) {
> > + pte_clear(mm, va, ptep);
> > + pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
> > + }
> > }
>
> Ow geez, now I have to go remember how the whole PTI/LDT crud worked :/
I apologize for sending you back there!
>
> At first glance this seems wrong; we can't just not unmap the LDT if we
> can't find it in a hurry. Also, IIRC this isn't in fact a regular user
> mapping, so it should not be subject to THP induced seizures.
>
> ... memory bubbles back ... for PTI kernels we need to map this in the
> user and kernel page-tables because obviously userspace needs to be able
> to have access to the LDT. But it is not directly acessible by
> userspace. It lives in the cpu_entry_area as a virtual map of the real
> kernel allocation, and this virtual address is used for LLDT.
> Modification is done through sys_modify_ldt().
And there must be a user-style page table backing that cpu_entry_area,
because the use of get_locked_pte() and pte_unmap_unlock() implies
that there's a user page table (struct page containing spinlock if
config says so) rather than just a kernel page table mapping it.
>
> I think I would feel much better if this were something like:
>
> if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!ptep))
>
> This really shouldn't fail and if it does, simply skipping it isn't the
> right thing either.
Sure, I'll gladly make that change when I respin - not immediately, let's
get more feedback on this arch series first, but maybe in a week's time.
Thanks for looking so quickly, Peter: I didn't Cc you on this particular
series, but shall certainly be doing so on the ones that follow, because
a few of those patches go into interesting pmdp_get_lockless() territory.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists