Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:27:43 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm/uffd: Always wr-protect pte in pte|pmd_mkuffd_wp() | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 14.12.22 15:26, Peter Xu wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 11:59:35AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 08.12.22 20:46, Peter Xu wrote: >>> This patch is a cleanup to always wr-protect pte/pmd in mkuffd_wp paths. >>> >>> The reasons I still think this patch is worthwhile, are: >>> >>> (1) It is a cleanup already; diffstat tells. >>> >>> (2) It just feels natural after I thought about this, if the pte is uffd >>> protected, let's remove the write bit no matter what it was. >>> >>> (2) Since x86 is the only arch that supports uffd-wp, it also redefines >>> pte|pmd_mkuffd_wp() in that it should always contain removals of >>> write bits. It means any future arch that want to implement uffd-wp >>> should naturally follow this rule too. It's good to make it a >>> default, even if with vm_page_prot changes on VM_UFFD_WP. >>> >>> (3) It covers more than vm_page_prot. So no chance of any potential >>> future "accident" (like pte_mkdirty() sparc64 or loongarch, even >>> though it just got its pte_mkdirty fixed <1 month ago). It'll be >>> fairly clear when reading the code too that we don't worry anything >>> before a pte_mkuffd_wp() on uncertainty of the write bit. >> >> Don't necessarily agree with (3). If you'd have a broken pte_mkdirty() and >> do the pte_mkdirty() after pte_mkuffd_wp() it would still be broken. Because >> sparc64 and loongarch are simply broken. > > That's why I mentioned on the order of operations matters. > >> >>> >>> We may call pte_wrprotect() one more time in some paths (e.g. thp split), >>> but that should be fully local bitop instruction so the overhead should be >>> negligible. >>> >>> Although this patch should logically also fix all the known issues on >>> uffd-wp too recently on either page migration or numa balancing, but this >>> is not the plan for that fix. So no fixes, and stable doesn't need this. >> >> I don't see how this would fix do_numa_page(), where we only do a >> pte_modify(). > > Yes, this patch won't, because it's a pure cleanup. Otherwise we need > another line of wr-protect in numa recover path. > > I can remove that sentence in v2 commit log.
Feel free to add my
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Nothing jumped at me.
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
|  |