linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 03/25] mm: Make pte_next_pfn() a wrapper around pte_advance

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]

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:29:00 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, John Hubbard
 <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
 Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/25] mm: Make pte_next_pfn() a wrapper around
 pte_advance_pfn()

On 12.02.24 15:10, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 12:14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> The goal is to be able to advance a PTE by an arbitrary number of PFNs.
>>> So introduce a new API that takes a nr param.
>>>
>>> We are going to remove pte_next_pfn() and replace it with
>>> pte_advance_pfn(). As a first step, implement pte_next_pfn() as a
>>> wrapper around pte_advance_pfn() so that we can incrementally switch the
>>> architectures over. Once all arches are moved over, we will change all
>>> the core-mm callers to call pte_advance_pfn() directly and remove the
>>> wrapper.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>>> ---
>>>    include/linux/pgtable.h | 8 +++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>> index 5e7eaf8f2b97..815d92dcb96b 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>> @@ -214,9 +214,15 @@ static inline int pmd_dirty(pmd_t pmd)
>>>        #ifndef pte_next_pfn
>>> +#ifndef pte_advance_pfn
>>> +static inline pte_t pte_advance_pfn(pte_t pte, unsigned long nr)
>>> +{
>>> +    return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (nr << PFN_PTE_SHIFT));
>>> +}
>>> +#endif
>>>    static inline pte_t pte_next_pfn(pte_t pte)
>>>    {
>>> -    return __pte(pte_val(pte) + (1UL << PFN_PTE_SHIFT));
>>> +    return pte_advance_pfn(pte, 1);
>>>    }
>>>    #endif
>>>    
>>
>> I do wonder if we simply want to leave pte_next_pfn() around? Especially patch
>> #4, #6 don't really benefit from the change? So are the other set_ptes()
>> implementations.
>>
>> That is, only convert all pte_next_pfn()->pte_advance_pfn(), and leave a
>> pte_next_pfn() macro in place.
>>
>> Any downsides to that?
> 
> The downside is just having multiple functions that effectively do the same
> thing. Personally I think its cleaner and easier to understand the code with
> just one generic function which we pass 1 to it where we only want to advance by
> 1. In the end, there are only a couple of places where pte_advance_pfn(1) is
> used, so doesn't really seem valuable to me to maintain a specialization.

Well, not really functions, just a macro. Like we have set_pte_at() 
translating to set_ptes().

Arguably, we have more callers of set_pte_at().

"Easier to understand", I don't know. :)

> 
> Unless you feel strongly that we need to keep pte_next_pfn() then I'd prefer to
> leave it as I've done in this series.

Well, it makes you patch set shorter and there is less code churn.

So personally, I'd just leave pte_next_pfn() in there. But whatever you 
prefer, not the end of the world.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb