linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] mm: Provide generic pmd_thp_or

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: <20240221125753.GQ13330@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 08:57:53 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] mm: Provide generic pmd_thp_or_huge()

On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 05:37:37PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 01:55:51PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:14:13PM +0800, peterx@...hat.com wrote:
> > > From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > ARM defines pmd_thp_or_huge(), detecting either a THP or a huge PMD.  It
> > > can be a helpful helper if we want to merge more THP and hugetlb code
> > > paths.  Make it a generic default implementation, only exist when
> > > CONFIG_MMU.  Arch can overwrite it by defining its own version.
> > > 
> > > For example, ARM's pgtable-2level.h defines it to always return false.
> > > 
> > > Keep the macro declared with all config, it should be optimized to a false
> > > anyway if !THP && !HUGETLB.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/pgtable.h | 4 ++++
> > >  mm/gup.c                | 3 +--
> > >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> > > index 466cf477551a..2b42e95a4e3a 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> > > @@ -1362,6 +1362,10 @@ static inline int pmd_write(pmd_t pmd)
> > >  #endif /* pmd_write */
> > >  #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE */
> > >  
> > > +#ifndef pmd_thp_or_huge
> > > +#define pmd_thp_or_huge(pmd)	(pmd_huge(pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(pmd))
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > Why not just use pmd_leaf() ?
> > 
> > This GUP case seems to me exactly like what pmd_leaf() should really
> > do and be used for..
> 
> I think I mostly agree with you, and these APIs are indeed confusing.  IMHO
> the challenge is about the risk of breaking others on small changes in the
> details where evil resides.

These APIs are super confusing, which is why I brought it up.. Adding
even more subtly different variations is not helping.

I think pmd_leaf means the entry is present and refers to a physical
page not another radix level.

> > eg x86 does:
> > 
> > #define pmd_leaf	pmd_large
> > static inline int pmd_large(pmd_t pte)
> > 	return pmd_flags(pte) & _PAGE_PSE;
> > 
> > static inline int pmd_trans_huge(pmd_t pmd)
> > 	return (pmd_val(pmd) & (_PAGE_PSE|_PAGE_DEVMAP)) == _PAGE_PSE;
> > 
> > int pmd_huge(pmd_t pmd)
> >         return !pmd_none(pmd) &&
> >                 (pmd_val(pmd) & (_PAGE_PRESENT|_PAGE_PSE)) != _PAGE_PRESENT;
> 
> For example, here I don't think it's strictly pmd_leaf()? As pmd_huge()
> will return true if PRESENT=0 && PSE=0 (as long as none pte ruled out
> first), while pmd_leaf() will return false; I think that came from
> cbef8478bee5. 

Yikes, but do you even want to handle non-present entries in GUP
world? Isn't everything gated by !present in the first place?

> Besides that, there're also other cases where it's not clear of such direct
> replacement, not until further investigated.  E.g., arm-3level has:
> 
> #define pmd_leaf(pmd)		pmd_sect(pmd)
> #define pmd_sect(pmd)		((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == \
> 						 PMD_TYPE_SECT)
> #define PMD_TYPE_SECT		(_AT(pmdval_t, 1) << 0)
> 
> While pmd_huge() there relies on PMD_TABLE_BIT ()

I looked at tht, it looked OK.. 

#define PMD_TYPE_MASK               (_AT(pmdval_t, 3) << 0)
#define PMD_TABLE_BIT               (_AT(pmdval_t, 1) << 1)

It is the same stuff, just a little confusingly written

Jason