Re: [RFC PATCH v8 04/14] swiotlb: Map the buffer if it was unmapped by XPFO

From: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: juergh@gmail.com, tycho@tycho.ws, jsteckli@amazon.de,
	ak@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	liran.alon@oracle.com, keescook@google.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@suse.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, jmorris@namei.org,
	konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
	Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com>,
	deepa.srinivasan@oracle.com, chris.hyser@oracle.com,
	tyhicks@canonical.com, dwmw@amazon.co.uk,
	andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, jcm@redhat.com,
	boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com,
	joao.m.martins@oracle.com, jmattson@google.com,
	pradeep.vincent@oracle.com, john.haxby@oracle.com,
	tglx@linutronix.de, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
	steven.sistare@oracle.com, labbott@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org,
	dave.hansen@intel.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 04/14] swiotlb: Map the buffer if it was unmapped by XPFO
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 12:48:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <056ffba0-e970-96d5-3d0b-c0a6f9460405@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190214174451.GA3338@lst.de>

On 2/14/19 10:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 09:56:24AM -0700, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>> On 2/14/19 12:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 05:01:27PM -0700, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>>>> +++ b/kernel/dma/swiotlb.c
>>>> @@ -396,8 +396,9 @@ static void swiotlb_bounce(phys_addr_t orig_addr, phys_addr_t tlb_addr,
>>>>  {
>>>>  	unsigned long pfn = PFN_DOWN(orig_addr);
>>>>  	unsigned char *vaddr = phys_to_virt(tlb_addr);
>>>> +	struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (PageHighMem(pfn_to_page(pfn))) {
>>>> +	if (PageHighMem(page) || xpfo_page_is_unmapped(page)) {
>>>
>>> I think this just wants a page_unmapped or similar helper instead of
>>> needing the xpfo_page_is_unmapped check.  We actually have quite
>>> a few similar construct in the arch dma mapping code for architectures
>>> that require cache flushing.
>>
>> As I am not the original author of this patch, I am interpreting the
>> original intent. I think xpfo_page_is_unmapped() was added to account
>> for kernel build without CONFIG_XPFO. xpfo_page_is_unmapped() has an
>> alternate definition to return false if CONFIG_XPFO is not defined.
>> xpfo_is_unmapped() is cleaned up further in patch 11 ("xpfo, mm: remove
>> dependency on CONFIG_PAGE_EXTENSION") to a one-liner "return
>> PageXpfoUnmapped(page);". xpfo_is_unmapped() can be eliminated entirely
>> by adding an else clause to the following code added by that patch:
> 
> The point I'm making it that just about every PageHighMem() check
> before code that does a kmap* later needs to account for xpfo as well.
> 
> So instead of opencoding the above, be that using xpfo_page_is_unmapped
> or PageXpfoUnmapped, we really need one self-describing helper that
> checks if a page is unmapped for any reason and needs a kmap to access
> it.
> 

Understood. XpfoUnmapped is a the state for a page when it is a free
page. When this page is allocated to userspace and userspace passes this
page back to kernel in a syscall, kernel will always go through kmap to
map it temporarily any way. When the page is freed back to the kernel,
its mapping in physmap is restored. If the free page is allocated to
kernel, its physmap entry is preserved. So I am inclined to say a page
being XpfoUnmapped should not affect need or lack of need for kmap
elsewhere. Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Khalid