From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anshuman Khandual Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 04:53:24 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() Message-Id: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com> List-Id: References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed >>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() >>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is >>>> not this better ? >>> >>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>> >>> search for 'kprobes'. >>> >>> tell me what you think. >> >> Are you referring to these following commits >> >> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") >> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code") >> >> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context >> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective >> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it >> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible. >> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt >> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms, >> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around. > > Exactly. > > So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently > from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation > for all the architectures supporting kprobes? So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this. int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) { int ret = 0; /* * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. */ if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) ret = 1; } return ret; } 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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 74BE4C04AB6 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:53:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4E627B84 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:53:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726550AbfFCExU (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:53:20 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:44420 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726221AbfFCExT (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jun 2019 00:53:19 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87D1341; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 21:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.162.40.144] (p8cg001049571a15.blr.arm.com [10.162.40.144]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC0BB3F5AF; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 21:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Mark Rutland , Christophe Leroy , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , Michael Ellerman , Paul Mackerras , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Yoshinori Sato , "David S. Miller" References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:23:26 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed >>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() >>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is >>>> not this better ? >>> >>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>> >>> search for 'kprobes'. >>> >>> tell me what you think. >> >> Are you referring to these following commits >> >> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") >> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code") >> >> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context >> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective >> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it >> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible. >> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt >> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms, >> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around. > > Exactly. > > So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently > from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation > for all the architectures supporting kprobes? So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this. int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) { int ret = 0; /* * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. */ if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) ret = 1; } return ret; } From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:23:26 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org List-Archive: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" List-ID: On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed >>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() >>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is >>>> not this better ? >>> >>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>> >>> search for 'kprobes'. >>> >>> tell me what you think. >> >> Are you referring to these following commits >> >> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") >> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code") >> >> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context >> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective >> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it >> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible. >> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt >> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms, >> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around. > > Exactly. > > So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently > from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation > for all the architectures supporting kprobes? So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this. int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) { int ret = 0; /* * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. */ if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) ret = 1; } return ret; } _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anshuman Khandual Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 04:53:26 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() Message-Id: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com> List-Id: References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed >>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() >>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is >>>> not this better ? >>> >>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>> >>> search for 'kprobes'. >>> >>> tell me what you think. >> >> Are you referring to these following commits >> >> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") >> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code") >> >> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context >> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective >> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it >> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible. >> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt >> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms, >> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around. > > Exactly. > > So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently > from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation > for all the architectures supporting kprobes? So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this. int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) { int ret = 0; /* * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. */ if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) ret = 1; } return ret; } 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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 20A25C04AB6 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (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 6CD4E27B84 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 04:54:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6CD4E27B84 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45HN545GLqzDqRh for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:54:32 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.101.70; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=anshuman.khandual@arm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45HN3k5gtfzDqNF for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 14:53:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A87D1341; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 21:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.162.40.144] (p8cg001049571a15.blr.arm.com [10.162.40.144]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC0BB3F5AF; Sun, 2 Jun 2019 21:53:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() To: Matthew Wilcox References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:23:26 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed >>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() >>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is >>>> not this better ? >>> >>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>> >>> search for 'kprobes'. >>> >>> tell me what you think. >> >> Are you referring to these following commits >> >> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") >> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code") >> >> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context >> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective >> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it >> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible. >> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt >> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms, >> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around. > > Exactly. > > So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently > from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation > for all the architectures supporting kprobes? So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this. int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) { int ret = 0; /* * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. */ if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) ret = 1; } return ret; } From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anshuman Khandual Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 04:53:20 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() Message-Id: <6338fef8-e097-a76e-5c07-455d0d9b6e24@arm.com> List-Id: References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> <20190530133954.GA2024@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20190531174854.GA31852@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" On 05/31/2019 11:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 02:17:43PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 05/30/2019 07:09 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 05:31:15PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>>>> The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed >>>> generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() >>>> pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is >>>> not this better ? >>> >>> git log -p arch/x86/mm/fault.c >>> >>> search for 'kprobes'. >>> >>> tell me what you think. >> >> Are you referring to these following commits >> >> a980c0ef9f6d ("x86/kprobes: Refactor kprobes_fault() like kprobe_exceptions_notify()") >> b506a9d08bae ("x86: code clarification patch to Kprobes arch code") >> >> In particular the later one (b506a9d08bae). It explains how the invoking context >> in itself should be non-preemptible for the kprobes processing context irrespective >> of whether kprobe_running() or perhaps smp_processor_id() is safe or not. Hence it >> does not make much sense to continue when original invoking context is preemptible. >> Instead just bail out earlier. This seems to be making more sense than preempt >> disable-enable pair. If there are no concerns about this change from other platforms, >> I will change the preemption behavior in proposed generic function next time around. > > Exactly. > > So, any of the arch maintainers know of a reason they behave differently > from x86 in this regard? Or can Anshuman use the x86 implementation > for all the architectures supporting kprobes? So the generic notify_page_fault() will be like this. int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) { int ret = 0; /* * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. */ if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) { if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) ret = 1; } return ret; }