linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 04/12] mm/rmap: implement make_device_exclusive() using folio

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: <99f215f2-1e7f-4ff6-adec-e838916f6f4e@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:56:07 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>,
 Yanteng Si <si.yanteng@...ux.dev>, Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
 Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
 Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/12] mm/rmap: implement make_device_exclusive() using
 folio_walk instead of rmap walk

On 30.01.25 23:31, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:24:37AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.01.25 10:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 30.01.25 07:11, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:54:02PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> We require a writable PTE and only support anonymous folio: we can only
>>>>> have exactly one PTE pointing at that page, which we can just lookup
>>>>> using a folio walk, avoiding the rmap walk and the anon VMA lock.
>>>>>
>>>>> So let's stop doing an rmap walk and perform a folio walk instead, so we
>>>>> can easily just modify a single PTE and avoid relying on rmap/mapcounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> We now effectively work on a single PTE instead of multiple PTEs of
>>>>> a large folio, allowing for conversion of individual PTEs from
>>>>> non-exclusive to device-exclusive -- note that the other way always
>>>>> worked on single PTEs.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can drop the MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE MMU notifier call and document why
>>>>> that is not required: GUP will already take care of the
>>>>> MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE call if required (there is already a device-exclusive
>>>>> entry) when not finding a present PTE and having to trigger a fault and
>>>>> ending up in remove_device_exclusive_entry().
>>>>
>>>> I will have to look at this a bit more closely tomorrow but this doesn't seem
>>>> right to me. We may be transitioning from a present PTE (ie. a writable
>>>> anonymous mapping) to a non-present PTE (ie. a device-exclusive entry) and
>>>> therefore any secondary processors (eg. other GPUs, iommus, etc.) will need to
>>>> update their copies of the PTE. So I think the notifier call is needed.
>>>
>>> Then it is all very confusing:
> 
> Can't argue with that in hindsight :-)
> 
>>> "MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE: to signal a device driver that the device will no
>>> longer have exclusive access to the page."
>>
>> So the second sentence actually describes the other condition. Likely we
>> should make that clearer:
>>
>> --- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
>> @@ -43,10 +43,11 @@ struct mmu_interval_notifier;
>>    * a device driver to possibly ignore the invalidation if the
>>    * owner field matches the driver's device private pgmap owner.
>>    *
>> - * @MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE: to signal a device driver that the device will no
>> - * longer have exclusive access to the page. When sent during creation of an
>> - * exclusive range the owner will be initialised to the value provided by the
>> - * caller of make_device_exclusive(), otherwise the owner will be NULL.
>> + * @MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE: (1) to signal a device driver that the device will no
>> + * longer have exclusive access to the page; and (2) to signal that a page will
>> + * be made exclusive to a device. During (1), the owner will be NULL, during
>> + * (2), the owner will be initialised to the value provided by the caller of
>> + * make_device_exclusive().
> 
> Yes, I think that makes things clearer. Logically these are really two different
> events though - I guess I didn't want to add another one at the time but I
> wonder if we should just make them separate events rather than overloading them?

I had the same thought and then I wondered: can't we simply use 
MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR for the exclusive->ordinary path?

I mean, it's essentially a zap+flush followed by a re-insertion of the 
PFN swap entry. Similar to page migration ...

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb