linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 23/26] mm: Remove pXX

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: <hhaj4zghiwsuuisctlydmixgxxlo3jb2vcylkeaq4gl4dcmu7i@oj6bpk2obgux>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 20:57:04 +1100
From: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	alison.schofield@...el.com, lina@...hilina.net, zhang.lyra@...il.com, 
	gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com, vishal.l.verma@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com, 
	logang@...tatee.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com, jack@...e.cz, jgg@...pe.ca, 
	catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com, 
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, ira.weiny@...el.com, willy@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org, 
	tytso@....edu, linmiaohe@...wei.com, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, jhubbard@...dia.com, hch@....de, david@...morbit.com, 
	chenhuacai@...nel.org, kernel@...0n.name, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 23/26] mm: Remove pXX_devmap callers

On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 11:06:08AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Alistair Popple wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:50:49AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > > The devmap PTE special bit was used to detect mappings of FS DAX
> > > > pages. This tracking was required to ensure the generic mm did not
> > > > manipulate the page reference counts as FS DAX implemented it's own
> > > > reference counting scheme.
> > > > 
> > > > Now that FS DAX pages have their references counted the same way as
> > > > normal pages this tracking is no longer needed and can be
> > > > removed.
> > > > 
> > > > Almost all existing uses of pmd_devmap() are paired with a check of
> > > > pmd_trans_huge(). As pmd_trans_huge() now returns true for FS DAX pages
> > > > dropping the check in these cases doesn't change anything.
> > > > 
> > > > However care needs to be taken because pmd_trans_huge() also checks that
> > > > a page is not an FS DAX page. This is dealt with either by checking
> > > > !vma_is_dax() or relying on the fact that the page pointer was obtained
> > > > from a page list. This is possible because zone device pages cannot
> > > > appear in any page list due to sharing page->lru with page->pgmap.
> > > 
> > > While the patch looks straightforward I think part of taking "care" in
> > > this case is to split it such that any of those careful conversions have
> > > their own bisect point in the history.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps this can move to follow-on series to not blow up the patch count
> > > of the base series? ...but first want to get your reaction to splitting
> > > for bisect purposes.
> > 
> > TBH I don't feel too strongly about it - I suppose it would make it easier to
> > bisect to the specific case we weren't careful enough about. However I think if
> > a bug is bisected to this particular patch it would be relatively easy based on
> > the context of the bug to narrow it down to a particular file or two.
> > 
> > I do however feel strongly about whether or not that should be done in a
> > follow-on series :-)
> > 
> > Rebasing such a large series has already become painful and error prone enough
> > so if we want to split this change up it will definitely need to be a separate
> > series done once the rest of this has been merged. So I could be pursaded to
> > roll this and the pfn_t removal (as that depends on devmap going away) together.
> > 
> > Let me know what you think.
> 
> I tend to think that there's never any regrets for splitting a patch
> along lines of risk. I am fine with keeping that in this series if that
> makes things easier.

Yes, that is a reaonable point of view. You will notice I dropped these
clean-ups in my latest repost as I intend to post them as a separate clean-up
series to be applied on top of this one. My hope would be the clean up series
would also make it into v6.15.