From: Jia He <hejianet@gmail.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, will@kernel.org
Cc: Mark.Rutland@arm.com, Justin.He@arm.com, Kaly.Xin@arm.com,
Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
willy@infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, James.Morse@arm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, punitagrawal@gmail.com,
maz@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, nd@arm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF is cleared
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 10:59:22 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c4fa5937-eef2-8932-e8fe-0ee5d9f4de1a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mhng-265b415f-c8ff-4727-a8fa-2f3e51937ba6@palmer-si-x1c4>
Hi Palmer
On 2019/10/19 4:38, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:46:08 PDT (-0700), will@kernel.org wrote:
>> Hey Palmer,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:21:59PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:39:44 PDT (-0700), will@kernel.org wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:19:05AM +0000, Justin He (Arm Technology
>>> China) wrote:
>>> > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 09:57:40AM +0800, Jia He wrote:
>>> > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>> > > > > index b1ca51a079f2..1f56b0118ef5 100644
>>> > > > > --- a/mm/memory.c
>>> > > > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>> > > > > @@ -118,6 +118,13 @@ int randomize_va_space __read_mostly =
>>> > > > > 2;
>>> > > > > #endif
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > +#ifndef arch_faults_on_old_pte
>>> > > > > +static inline bool arch_faults_on_old_pte(void)
>>> > > > > +{
>>> > > > > + return false;
>>> > > > > +}
>>> > > > > +#endif
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Kirill has acked this, so I'm happy to take the patch as-is, however
>>> isn't
>>> > > > it the case that /most/ architectures will want to return true for
>>> > > > arch_faults_on_old_pte()? In which case, wouldn't it make more sense for
>>> > > > that to be the default, and have x86 and arm64 provide an override? For
>>> > > > example, aren't most architectures still going to hit the double fault
>>> > > > scenario even with your patch applied?
>>> > >
>>> > > No, after applying my patch series, only those architectures which
>>> don't provide
>>> > > setting access flag by hardware AND don't implement their
>>> arch_faults_on_old_pte
>>> > > will hit the double page fault.
>>> > >
>>> > > The meaning of true for arch_faults_on_old_pte() is "this arch doesn't
>>> have the hardware
>>> > > setting access flag way, it might cause page fault on an old pte"
>>> > > I don't want to change other architectures' default behavior here. So
>>> by default,
>>> > > arch_faults_on_old_pte() is false.
>>> >
>>> > ...and my complaint is that this is the majority of supported architectures,
>>> > so you're fixing something for arm64 which also affects arm, powerpc,
>>> > alpha, mips, riscv, ...
>>> >
>>> > Chances are, they won't even realise they need to implement
>>> > arch_faults_on_old_pte() until somebody runs into the double fault and
>>> > wastes lots of time debugging it before they spot your patch.
>>>
>>> If I understand the semantics correctly, we should have this set to true. I
>>> don't have any context here, but we've got
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * The kernel assumes that TLBs don't cache invalid
>>> * entries, but in RISC-V, SFENCE.VMA specifies an
>>> * ordering constraint, not a cache flush; it is
>>> * necessary even after writing invalid entries.
>>> */
>>> local_flush_tlb_page(addr);
>>>
>>> in do_page_fault().
>>
>> Ok, although I think this is really about whether or not your hardware can
>> make a pte young when accessed, or whether you take a fault and do it
>> by updating the pte explicitly.
>>
>> v12 of the patches did change the default, so you should be "safe" with
>> those either way:
>>
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2019-October/686030.html
>
> OK, that fence is because we allow invalid translations to be cached, which
> is a completely different issue.
>
> RISC-V implementations are allowed to have software managed accessed/dirty
> bits. For some reason I thought we were relying on the firmware to handle
> this, but I can't actually find the code so I might be crazy. Wherever it's
> done, there's no spec enforcing it so we should leave this true on RISC-V.
>
Thanks for the confirmation. So we can keep the default arch_faults_on_old_pte
(return true) on RISC-V.
Thanks.
---
Cheers,
Justin (Jia He)
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-19 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-30 1:57 [PATCH v10 0/3] fix double page fault on arm64 Jia He
2019-09-30 1:57 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] arm64: cpufeature: introduce helper cpu_has_hw_af() Jia He
2019-10-01 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-01 13:18 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-10-08 1:12 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-08 15:32 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2019-10-09 6:29 ` Jia He
2019-09-30 1:57 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] arm64: mm: implement arch_faults_on_old_pte() on arm64 Jia He
2019-10-01 12:50 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-01 13:32 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-10-08 1:55 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-08 2:30 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-08 7:46 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-09-30 1:57 ` [PATCH v10 3/3] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF is cleared Jia He
2019-10-01 12:54 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-08 2:19 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-08 12:39 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-08 12:58 ` Justin He (Arm Technology China)
2019-10-08 14:32 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2019-10-16 23:21 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2019-10-16 23:46 ` Will Deacon
2019-10-18 20:38 ` Palmer Dabbelt
2019-10-19 2:59 ` Jia He [this message]
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=c4fa5937-eef2-8932-e8fe-0ee5d9f4de1a@gmail.com \
--to=hejianet@gmail.com \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=James.Morse@arm.com \
--cc=Justin.He@arm.com \
--cc=Kaly.Xin@arm.com \
--cc=Mark.Rutland@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=palmer@sifive.com \
--cc=punitagrawal@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).