linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/13] mm/powerpc: Redefine pXd_huge() with pXd

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: <1f6ad500-3ff7-44d4-8223-067bd2ed9ffe@csgroup.eu>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:11:59 +0000
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Andrew
 Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Mike
 Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
	"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>, Jason Gunthorpe
	<jgg@...dia.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Nicholas Piggin
	<npiggin@...il.com>, Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>, "Naveen N.
 Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] mm/powerpc: Redefine pXd_huge() with pXd_leaf()



Le 14/03/2024 à 13:53, Peter Xu a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 08:45:34AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 13/03/2024 à 22:47, peterx@...hat.com a écrit :
>>> From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
>>>
>>> PowerPC book3s 4K mostly has the same definition on both, except pXd_huge()
>>> constantly returns 0 for hash MMUs.  As Michael Ellerman pointed out [1],
>>> it is safe to check _PAGE_PTE on hash MMUs, as the bit will never be set so
>>> it will keep returning false.
>>>
>>> As a reference, __p[mu]d_mkhuge() will trigger a BUG_ON trying to create
>>> such huge mappings for 4K hash MMUs.  Meanwhile, the major powerpc hugetlb
>>> pgtable walker __find_linux_pte() already used pXd_leaf() to check hugetlb
>>> mappings.
>>>
>>> The goal should be that we will have one API pXd_leaf() to detect all kinds
>>> of huge mappings.  AFAICT we need to use the pXd_leaf() impl (rather than
>>> pXd_huge() ones) to make sure ie. THPs on hash MMU will also return true.
>>
>> All kinds of huge mappings ?
>>
>> pXd_leaf() will detect only leaf mappings (like pXd_huge() ). There are
>> also huge mappings through hugepd. On powerpc 8xx we have 8M huge pages
>> and 512k huge pages. A PGD entry covers 4M so pgd_leaf() won't report
>> those huge pages.
> 
> Ah yes, I should always mention this is in the context of leaf huge pages
> only.  Are the examples you provided all fall into hugepd category?  If so
> I can reword the commit message, as:

On powerpc 8xx, only the 8M huge pages fall into the hugepd case.

The 512k hugepages are at PTE level, they are handled more or less like 
CONT_PTE on ARM. see function set_huge_pte_at() for more context.

You can also look at pte_leaf_size() and pgd_leaf_size().

By the way pgd_leaf_size() looks odd because it is called only when 
pgd_leaf_size() returns true, which never happens for 8M pages.

> 
>          As a reference, __p[mu]d_mkhuge() will trigger a BUG_ON trying to
>          create such huge mappings for 4K hash MMUs.  Meanwhile, the major
>          powerpc hugetlb pgtable walker __find_linux_pte() already used
>          pXd_leaf() to check leaf hugetlb mappings.
> 
>          The goal should be that we will have one API pXd_leaf() to detect
>          all kinds of huge mappings except hugepd.  AFAICT we need to use
>          the pXd_leaf() impl (rather than pXd_huge() ones) to make sure
>          ie. THPs on hash MMU will also return true.
> 
> Does this look good to you?
> 
> Thanks,
>