From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BDBC433E1 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 10:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B083F206B6 for ; Fri, 15 May 2020 10:22:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=citrix.com header.i=@citrix.com header.b="R1iDMpgH" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B083F206B6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=citrix.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jZXTe-0004l4-1u; Fri, 15 May 2020 10:22:02 +0000 Received: from us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com ([172.99.69.81]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jZXTc-0004kz-Uu for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 15 May 2020 10:22:00 +0000 X-Inumbo-ID: e90dd476-9695-11ea-b07b-bc764e2007e4 Received: from esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com (unknown [216.71.155.175]) by us1-rack-iad1.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id e90dd476-9695-11ea-b07b-bc764e2007e4; Fri, 15 May 2020 10:21:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=citrix.com; s=securemail; t=1589538119; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=PLX/irBcj77s+RR4ozPmcDA6KQYvrn6NnBQ7KLS9iIc=; b=R1iDMpgHbFfFpB26Ua0an/7mqbQAkCjDkKIvjxddfgg4iUGhU6U1dvrj zYoGdmGwobw2h1MHQsswhmtk+1Bz4qwUiz2lPFONRgYB/ncSFcEaqeEwr SX/1GTUUtKZ6sDXzThjOd8+F4qGc1jFbk6Xa6jPid1HiwrYVFAUYjKDC5 M=; Received-SPF: None (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of roger.pau@citrix.com) identity=pra; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: domain of roger.pau@citrix.com designates 162.221.158.21 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1"; x-record-text="v=spf1 ip4:209.167.231.154 ip4:178.63.86.133 ip4:195.66.111.40/30 ip4:85.115.9.32/28 ip4:199.102.83.4 ip4:192.28.146.160 ip4:192.28.146.107 ip4:216.52.6.88 ip4:216.52.6.188 ip4:162.221.158.21 ip4:162.221.156.83 ip4:168.245.78.127 ~all" Received-SPF: None (esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@mail.citrix.com) identity=helo; client-ip=162.221.158.21; receiver=esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; envelope-from="roger.pau@citrix.com"; x-sender="postmaster@mail.citrix.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Authentication-Results: esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=roger.pau@citrix.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=roger.pau@citrix.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@mail.citrix.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) d=citrix.com IronPort-SDR: pZRbFrtpvl5g/9Fs8nfhTIb67djmHS7ju521evFBt3UKyW1ZEYf5xD2yoZ104a1FtaC28Cle/r wOZEUz7uEt1CzQ1QRfC6t0ewtH7QcjuNB7PXsZsUedx1TOdjpZLq3WfYNEQKDkxdWv18hhvPf+ HTZqKraVbhsx5mwDSX8LEOrumx+GtHIi/BJAxIcAcU22Xl+p/vxOHUHXUwq2xUquV0x/d1qcRP CpAfdibcZts3IZhHa5wHcjb5I4IupRJFu8pYgYwf+ncc/EmkahonKW3gii4CyBFHnXyu3043pn Mmg= X-SBRS: 2.7 X-MesageID: 17972128 X-Ironport-Server: esa6.hc3370-68.iphmx.com X-Remote-IP: 162.221.158.21 X-Policy: $RELAYED X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,394,1583211600"; d="scan'208";a="17972128" Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 12:21:49 +0200 From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= To: Jan Beulich Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] x86/mem-paging: add minimal lock order enforcement to p2m_mem_paging_prep() Message-ID: <20200515102149.GS54375@Air-de-Roger> References: <4af1f459-fe7a-cd61-43cb-fb3fa4f15c00@suse.com> <20200514162545.GI54375@Air-de-Roger> <8b9fd4ce-177f-6f57-8d24-8468fea0c299@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <8b9fd4ce-177f-6f57-8d24-8468fea0c299@suse.com> X-ClientProxiedBy: AMSPEX02CAS02.citrite.net (10.69.22.113) To AMSPEX02CL02.citrite.net (10.69.22.126) X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , George Dunlap , Wei Liu , Andrew Cooper Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Sender: "Xen-devel" On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:46:23AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > [CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT reply, click links, or open attachments unless you have verified the sender and know the content is safe. > > On 14.05.2020 18:25, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:38:44AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> While full checking is impossible (as the lock is being acquired/ > >> released down the call tree), perform at least a lock level check. > > > > I'm slightly confused, doesn't alloc_domheap_page already have it's > > own lock order checking? > > I don't see how it would, as it doesn't (and can't legitimately) > include arch/x86/mm/mm-locks.h. Also maybe this comment in the > header clarifies it: > > /* Page alloc lock (per-domain) > * > * This is an external lock, not represented by an mm_lock_t. However, > * pod code uses it in conjunction with the p2m lock, and expecting > * the ordering which we enforce here. > * The lock is not recursive. */ Thanks. Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné