linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/22] mm: Always use page table accessor functions

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46ca641c-6a39-49e4-b1b2-23262841ecc8@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 09:35:37 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@...nel.org>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@...ive.com>,
 Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>,
 linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
 Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
 Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
 "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/22] mm: Always use page table accessor functions

On 11/27/25 09:26, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 26/11/2025 à 15:22, Ryan Roberts a écrit :
>> On 26/11/2025 13:47, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 01:03:42PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 26/11/2025 12:35, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've just come across this patch and wanted to mention that we could also
>>>>>>>>> benefit from this improved absraction for some features we are looking at for
>>>>>>>>> arm64. As you mention, Anshuman had a go but hit some roadblocks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The main issue is that the compiler was unable to optimize away the
>>>>>>>>> READ_ONCE()s
>>>>>>>>> for the case where certain levels of the pgtable are folded. But it can
>>>>>>>>> optimize
>>>>>>>>> the plain C dereferences. There were complaints the the generated code for arm
>>>>>>>>> (32) and powerpc was significantly impacted due to having many more
>>>>>>>>> (redundant)
>>>>>>>>> loads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We do have mm_pmd_folded()/p4d_folded() etc, could that help to sort
>>>>>>>> this out internally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just stumbled over the reply from Christope:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flkml.kernel.org%2Fr%2F0019d675-ce3d-4a5c-89ed-f126c45145c9%40kernel.org&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7C22d0a028b1ec4a8b678108de2cf73769%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C638997637481119954%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ocR6usVgRHfue0MrtbQnDO8whINvy%2FDMAfNE3caiY8c%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And wonder if we could handle that somehow directly in the pgdp_get() etc.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly don't like the suggestion of doing the is_folded() test outside the
>>>> helper, but if we can push that logic down into pXdp_get() that would be pretty
>>>> neat. Anshuman and I did briefly play with the idea of doing a C dereference if
>>>> the level is folded and a READ_ONCE() otherwise, all inside each pXdp_get()
>>>> helper. Although we never proved it to be correct. I struggle with the model for
>>>> folding. Do you want to optimize out all-but-the-highest level's access or
>>>> all-but-the-lowest level's access? Makes my head hurt...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean sth like:
>>>
>>> static inline pmd_t pmdp_get(pmd_t *pmdp)
>>> {
>>> #ifdef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
>>> 	return *pmdp;
>>> #else
>>> 	return READ_ONCE(*pmdp);
>>> #endif
>>> }
>>
>> Yes. But I'm not convinced it's correct.
>>
>> I *think* (but please correct me if I'm wrong) if the PMD is folded, the PUD and
>> P4D must also be folded, and you effectively have a 2 level pgtable consisting
>> of the PGD table and the PTE table. p4dp_get(), pudp_get() and pmdp_get() are
>> all effectively duplicating the load of the pgd entry? So assuming pgdp_get()
>> was already called and used READ_ONCE(), you might hope the compiler will just
>> drop the other loads and just use the value returned by READ_ONCE(). But I doubt
>> there is any guarantee of that and you might be in a situation where pgdp_get()
>> never even got called (perhaps you already have the pmd pointer).
> 
> I think you can't assume pgdp_get() was already called, because some
> parts of code will directly descend to PMD level using pmd_off() or
> pmd_off_k()
> 
> static inline pmd_t *pmd_off(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long va)
> {
> 	return pmd_offset(pud_offset(p4d_offset(pgd_offset(mm, va), va), va), va);
> }
> 
> static inline pmd_t *pmd_off_k(unsigned long va)
> {
> 	return pmd_offset(pud_offset(p4d_offset(pgd_offset_k(va), va), va), va);
> }

I'll note that these (nesty) helpers only work when you know that you 
have folded page tables.

And that's why I am arguing that the pmdp_get() must actually be kept as is.

-- 
Cheers

David