All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] mm: ptdump: Provide page size to notepage()
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:15:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <10adad00-14de-61b6-ce2a-bdde23a34bcf@csgroup.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b245cf06-f2e5-87a5-9a5e-64efc39d415a@csgroup.eu>



Le 16/04/2021 à 17:04, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 16/04/2021 à 16:40, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Le 16/04/2021 à 15:00, Steven Price a écrit :
>>> On 16/04/2021 12:08, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 12:51, Steven Price a écrit :
>>>>> On 16/04/2021 11:38, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 11:28, Steven Price a écrit :
>>>>>>> To be honest I don't fully understand why powerpc requires the page_size - it appears to be 
>>>>>>> using it purely to find "holes" in the calls to note_page(), but I haven't worked out why 
>>>>>>> such holes would occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was indeed introduced for KASAN. We have a first commit 
>>>>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/cabe8138 which uses page size to detect whether it is 
>>>>>> a KASAN like stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then came https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b00ff6d8c as a fix. I can't remember what 
>>>>>> the problem was exactly, something around the use of hugepages for kernel memory, came as part 
>>>>>> of the series 
>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/cover/cover.1589866984.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu/ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, that's useful context. So it looks like powerpc took a different route to reducing the 
>>>>> KASAN output to x86.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the generic ptdump code has handling for KASAN already it should be possible to drop that 
>>>>> from the powerpc arch code, which I think means we don't actually need to provide page size to 
>>>>> notepage(). Hopefully that means more code to delete ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes ... and no.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the generic ptdump handles the case when several pgdir entries points to the same 
>>>> kasan_early_shadow_pte. But it doesn't take into account the powerpc case where we have regular 
>>>> page tables where several (if not all) PTEs are pointing to the kasan_early_shadow_page .
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow quite how powerpc is different here. But could you have a similar check for 
>>> PTEs against kasan_early_shadow_pte as the other levels already have?
>>>
>>> I'm just worried that page_size isn't well defined in this interface and it's going to cause 
>>> problems in the future.
>>>
>>
>> I'm trying. I reverted the two commits b00ff6d8c and cabe8138.
>>
>> At the moment, I don't get exactly what I expect: For linear memory I get one line for each 8M 
>> page whereas before reverting the patches I got one 16M line and one 112M line.
>>
>> And for KASAN shadow area I get two lines for the 2x 8M pages shadowing linear mem then I get one 
>> 4M line for each PGDIR entry pointing to kasan_early_shadow_pte.
>>
>> 0xf8000000-0xf87fffff 0x07000000         8M   huge        rw       present
>> 0xf8800000-0xf8ffffff 0x07800000         8M   huge        rw       present
>> 0xf9000000-0xf93fffff 0x01430000         4M               r        present
> ...
>> 0xfec00000-0xfeffffff 0x01430000         4M               r        present
>>
>> Any idea ?
>>
> 
> 
> I think the different with other architectures is here:
> 
>      } else if (flag != st->current_flags || level != st->level ||
>             addr >= st->marker[1].start_address ||
>             pa != st->last_pa + PAGE_SIZE) {
> 
> 
> In addition to the checks everyone do, powerpc also checks "pa != st->last_pa + PAGE_SIZE".
> And it is definitely for that test that page_size argument add been added.

By replacing that test by (pa - st->start_pa != addr - st->start_address) it works again. So we 
definitely don't need the real page size.


> 
> I see that other architectures except RISCV don't dump the physical address. But even RISCV doesn't 
> include that check.
> 
> That physical address dump was added by commit aaa229529244 ("powerpc/mm: Add physical address to 
> Linux page table dump") [https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/aaa2295]
> 
> How do other architectures deal with the problem described by the commit log of that patch ?
> 
> Christophe

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] mm: ptdump: Provide page size to notepage()
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:15:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <10adad00-14de-61b6-ce2a-bdde23a34bcf@csgroup.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b245cf06-f2e5-87a5-9a5e-64efc39d415a@csgroup.eu>



Le 16/04/2021 à 17:04, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 16/04/2021 à 16:40, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Le 16/04/2021 à 15:00, Steven Price a écrit :
>>> On 16/04/2021 12:08, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 12:51, Steven Price a écrit :
>>>>> On 16/04/2021 11:38, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 11:28, Steven Price a écrit :
>>>>>>> To be honest I don't fully understand why powerpc requires the page_size - it appears to be 
>>>>>>> using it purely to find "holes" in the calls to note_page(), but I haven't worked out why 
>>>>>>> such holes would occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was indeed introduced for KASAN. We have a first commit 
>>>>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/cabe8138 which uses page size to detect whether it is 
>>>>>> a KASAN like stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then came https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b00ff6d8c as a fix. I can't remember what 
>>>>>> the problem was exactly, something around the use of hugepages for kernel memory, came as part 
>>>>>> of the series 
>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/cover/cover.1589866984.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu/ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, that's useful context. So it looks like powerpc took a different route to reducing the 
>>>>> KASAN output to x86.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the generic ptdump code has handling for KASAN already it should be possible to drop that 
>>>>> from the powerpc arch code, which I think means we don't actually need to provide page size to 
>>>>> notepage(). Hopefully that means more code to delete ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes ... and no.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the generic ptdump handles the case when several pgdir entries points to the same 
>>>> kasan_early_shadow_pte. But it doesn't take into account the powerpc case where we have regular 
>>>> page tables where several (if not all) PTEs are pointing to the kasan_early_shadow_page .
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow quite how powerpc is different here. But could you have a similar check for 
>>> PTEs against kasan_early_shadow_pte as the other levels already have?
>>>
>>> I'm just worried that page_size isn't well defined in this interface and it's going to cause 
>>> problems in the future.
>>>
>>
>> I'm trying. I reverted the two commits b00ff6d8c and cabe8138.
>>
>> At the moment, I don't get exactly what I expect: For linear memory I get one line for each 8M 
>> page whereas before reverting the patches I got one 16M line and one 112M line.
>>
>> And for KASAN shadow area I get two lines for the 2x 8M pages shadowing linear mem then I get one 
>> 4M line for each PGDIR entry pointing to kasan_early_shadow_pte.
>>
>> 0xf8000000-0xf87fffff 0x07000000         8M   huge        rw       present
>> 0xf8800000-0xf8ffffff 0x07800000         8M   huge        rw       present
>> 0xf9000000-0xf93fffff 0x01430000         4M               r        present
> ...
>> 0xfec00000-0xfeffffff 0x01430000         4M               r        present
>>
>> Any idea ?
>>
> 
> 
> I think the different with other architectures is here:
> 
>      } else if (flag != st->current_flags || level != st->level ||
>             addr >= st->marker[1].start_address ||
>             pa != st->last_pa + PAGE_SIZE) {
> 
> 
> In addition to the checks everyone do, powerpc also checks "pa != st->last_pa + PAGE_SIZE".
> And it is definitely for that test that page_size argument add been added.

By replacing that test by (pa - st->start_pa != addr - st->start_address) it works again. So we 
definitely don't need the real page size.


> 
> I see that other architectures except RISCV don't dump the physical address. But even RISCV doesn't 
> include that check.
> 
> That physical address dump was added by commit aaa229529244 ("powerpc/mm: Add physical address to 
> Linux page table dump") [https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/aaa2295]
> 
> How do other architectures deal with the problem described by the commit log of that patch ?
> 
> Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>
To: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] mm: ptdump: Provide page size to notepage()
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:15:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <10adad00-14de-61b6-ce2a-bdde23a34bcf@csgroup.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b245cf06-f2e5-87a5-9a5e-64efc39d415a@csgroup.eu>



Le 16/04/2021 à 17:04, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> 
> 
> Le 16/04/2021 à 16:40, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
>>
>>
>> Le 16/04/2021 à 15:00, Steven Price a écrit :
>>> On 16/04/2021 12:08, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 12:51, Steven Price a écrit :
>>>>> On 16/04/2021 11:38, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 16/04/2021 à 11:28, Steven Price a écrit :
>>>>>>> To be honest I don't fully understand why powerpc requires the page_size - it appears to be 
>>>>>>> using it purely to find "holes" in the calls to note_page(), but I haven't worked out why 
>>>>>>> such holes would occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was indeed introduced for KASAN. We have a first commit 
>>>>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/cabe8138 which uses page size to detect whether it is 
>>>>>> a KASAN like stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then came https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/b00ff6d8c as a fix. I can't remember what 
>>>>>> the problem was exactly, something around the use of hugepages for kernel memory, came as part 
>>>>>> of the series 
>>>>>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/cover/cover.1589866984.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu/ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, that's useful context. So it looks like powerpc took a different route to reducing the 
>>>>> KASAN output to x86.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the generic ptdump code has handling for KASAN already it should be possible to drop that 
>>>>> from the powerpc arch code, which I think means we don't actually need to provide page size to 
>>>>> notepage(). Hopefully that means more code to delete ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes ... and no.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the generic ptdump handles the case when several pgdir entries points to the same 
>>>> kasan_early_shadow_pte. But it doesn't take into account the powerpc case where we have regular 
>>>> page tables where several (if not all) PTEs are pointing to the kasan_early_shadow_page .
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow quite how powerpc is different here. But could you have a similar check for 
>>> PTEs against kasan_early_shadow_pte as the other levels already have?
>>>
>>> I'm just worried that page_size isn't well defined in this interface and it's going to cause 
>>> problems in the future.
>>>
>>
>> I'm trying. I reverted the two commits b00ff6d8c and cabe8138.
>>
>> At the moment, I don't get exactly what I expect: For linear memory I get one line for each 8M 
>> page whereas before reverting the patches I got one 16M line and one 112M line.
>>
>> And for KASAN shadow area I get two lines for the 2x 8M pages shadowing linear mem then I get one 
>> 4M line for each PGDIR entry pointing to kasan_early_shadow_pte.
>>
>> 0xf8000000-0xf87fffff 0x07000000         8M   huge        rw       present
>> 0xf8800000-0xf8ffffff 0x07800000         8M   huge        rw       present
>> 0xf9000000-0xf93fffff 0x01430000         4M               r        present
> ...
>> 0xfec00000-0xfeffffff 0x01430000         4M               r        present
>>
>> Any idea ?
>>
> 
> 
> I think the different with other architectures is here:
> 
>      } else if (flag != st->current_flags || level != st->level ||
>             addr >= st->marker[1].start_address ||
>             pa != st->last_pa + PAGE_SIZE) {
> 
> 
> In addition to the checks everyone do, powerpc also checks "pa != st->last_pa + PAGE_SIZE".
> And it is definitely for that test that page_size argument add been added.

By replacing that test by (pa - st->start_pa != addr - st->start_address) it works again. So we 
definitely don't need the real page size.


> 
> I see that other architectures except RISCV don't dump the physical address. But even RISCV doesn't 
> include that check.
> 
> That physical address dump was added by commit aaa229529244 ("powerpc/mm: Add physical address to 
> Linux page table dump") [https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/aaa2295]
> 
> How do other architectures deal with the problem described by the commit log of that patch ?
> 
> Christophe

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-16 15:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-15 17:18 [PATCH v1 0/5] Convert powerpc to GENERIC_PTDUMP Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` [PATCH v1 1/5] mm: pagewalk: Fix walk for hugepage tables Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 22:43   ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 22:43     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 22:43     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 22:43     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-16  5:48     ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:48       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:48       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:48       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` [PATCH v1 2/5] mm: ptdump: Fix build failure Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` [PATCH v1 3/5] mm: ptdump: Provide page size to notepage() Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 23:12   ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 23:12     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 23:12     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 23:12     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-16  5:19     ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:19       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:19       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:19       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  9:28   ` Steven Price
2021-04-16  9:28     ` Steven Price
2021-04-16  9:28     ` Steven Price
2021-04-16  9:28     ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 10:38     ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 10:38       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 10:38       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 10:38       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 10:51       ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 10:51         ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 10:51         ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 10:51         ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 11:08         ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 11:08           ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 11:08           ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 11:08           ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 13:00           ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 13:00             ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 13:00             ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 13:00             ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 14:40             ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 14:40               ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 14:40               ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 14:40               ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 15:04               ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 15:04                 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 15:04                 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 15:15                 ` Christophe Leroy [this message]
2021-04-16 15:15                   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 15:15                   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16 16:00                   ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 16:00                     ` Steven Price
2021-04-16 16:00                     ` Steven Price
2021-04-19 13:14         ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-19 13:14           ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-19 13:14           ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-19 13:14           ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-19 14:00           ` Steven Price
2021-04-19 14:00             ` Steven Price
2021-04-19 14:00             ` Steven Price
2021-04-19 14:00             ` Steven Price
2021-04-19 16:41             ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-19 16:41               ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-19 16:41               ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-19 16:41               ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` [PATCH v1 4/5] mm: ptdump: Support hugepd table entries Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 23:29   ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 23:29     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-15 23:29     ` Daniel Axtens
2021-04-16  5:25     ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:25       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-16  5:25       ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18 ` [PATCH v1 5/5] powerpc/mm: Convert powerpc to GENERIC_PTDUMP Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy
2021-04-15 17:18   ` Christophe Leroy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=10adad00-14de-61b6-ce2a-bdde23a34bcf@csgroup.eu \
    --to=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=steven.price@arm.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.