[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca069bdf-3d53-41d9-adf1-f7a8b245f57b@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:48:51 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, oliver.upton@...ux.dev,
maz@...nel.org, james.morse@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
yuzenghui@...wei.com, arnd@...db.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
rppt@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com, pcc@...gle.com,
steven.price@....com, anshuman.khandual@....com,
vincenzo.frascino@....com, eugenis@...gle.com, kcc@...gle.com,
hyesoo.yu@...sung.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 19/27] mm: mprotect: Introduce PAGE_FAULT_ON_ACCESS
for mprotect(PROT_MTE)
On 29.11.23 12:55, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 06:55:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 19.11.23 17:57, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>>> To enable tagging on a memory range, userspace can use mprotect() with the
>>> PROT_MTE access flag. Pages already mapped in the VMA don't have the
>>> associated tag storage block reserved, so mark the PTEs as
>>> PAGE_FAULT_ON_ACCESS to trigger a fault next time they are accessed, and
>>> reserve the tag storage on the fault path.
>>
>> That sounds alot like fake PROT_NONE. Would there be a way to unify hat
>
> Yes, arm64 basically defines PAGE_FAULT_ON_ACCESS as PAGE_NONE |
> PTE_TAG_STORAGE_NONE.
>
>> handling and simply reuse pte_protnone()? For example, could we special case
>> on VMA flags?
>>
>> Like, don't do NUMA hinting in these special VMAs. Then, have something
>> like:
>>
>> if (pte_protnone(vmf->orig_pte))
>> return handle_pte_protnone(vmf);
>>
>> In there, special case on the VMA flags.
>
> Your suggestion from the follow-up reply that an arch should know if it needs to
> do something was spot on, arm64 can use the software bit in the translation
> table entry for that.
>
> So what you are proposing is this:
>
> * Rename do_numa_page->handle_pte_protnone
> * At some point in the do_numa_page (now renamed to handle_pte_protnone) flow,
> decide if pte_protnone() has been set for an arch specific reason or because
> of automatic NUMA balancing.
> * if pte_protnone() has been set by an architecture, then let the architecture
> handle the fault.
>
> If I understood you correctly, that's a good idea, and should be easy to
> implement.
yes! :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists