[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240807105942.09088ba3@p-imbrenda.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 10:59:42 +0200
From: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet
<corbet@....net>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev
<agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald
Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 08/11] s390/uv: convert gmap_destroy_page() from
follow_page() to folio_walk
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:55:21 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> Let's get rid of another follow_page() user and perform the UV calls
> under PTL -- which likely should be fine.
>
> No need for an additional reference while holding the PTL:
> uv_destroy_folio() and uv_convert_from_secure_folio() raise the
> refcount, so any concurrent make_folio_secure() would see an unexpted
> reference and cannot set PG_arch_1 concurrently.
>
> Do we really need a writable PTE? Likely yes, because the "destroy"
> part is, in comparison to the export, a destructive operation. So we'll
> keep the writability check for now.
>
> We'll lose the secretmem check from follow_page(). Likely we don't care
> about that here.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/kernel/uv.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> index 35ed2aea8891..9646f773208a 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/uv.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include <linux/memblock.h>
> #include <linux/pagemap.h>
> #include <linux/swap.h>
> +#include <linux/pagewalk.h>
> #include <asm/facility.h>
> #include <asm/sections.h>
> #include <asm/uv.h>
> @@ -462,9 +463,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gmap_convert_to_secure);
> int gmap_destroy_page(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> + struct folio_walk fw;
> unsigned long uaddr;
> struct folio *folio;
> - struct page *page;
> int rc;
>
> rc = -EFAULT;
> @@ -483,11 +484,15 @@ int gmap_destroy_page(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr)
> goto out;
>
> rc = 0;
> - /* we take an extra reference here */
> - page = follow_page(vma, uaddr, FOLL_WRITE | FOLL_GET);
> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(page))
> + folio = folio_walk_start(&fw, vma, uaddr, 0);
> + if (!folio)
> goto out;
> - folio = page_folio(page);
> + /*
> + * See gmap_make_secure(): large folios cannot be secure. Small
> + * folio implies FW_LEVEL_PTE.
> + */
> + if (folio_test_large(folio) || !pte_write(fw.pte))
> + goto out_walk_end;
> rc = uv_destroy_folio(folio);
> /*
> * Fault handlers can race; it is possible that two CPUs will fault
> @@ -500,7 +505,8 @@ int gmap_destroy_page(struct gmap *gmap, unsigned long gaddr)
> */
> if (rc)
> rc = uv_convert_from_secure_folio(folio);
> - folio_put(folio);
> +out_walk_end:
> + folio_walk_end(&fw, vma);
> out:
> mmap_read_unlock(gmap->mm);
> return rc;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists