Ard Biesheuvel [off-list ref] a écrit :

(add some folks back to cc:)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 15:58, Ard Biesheuvel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 12:49, Will Deacon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 06:31:08PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:

quoted

Jonathan Marek [off-list ref] a écrit :

quoted

c742199a breaks arm64 for some configs because it stubs out  

functions which

quoted

quoted

quoted

should not have been stubbed out.

With 4K pages and ARM64_VA_BITS_39=y, the kernel crashes  

early on unmapped

quoted

quoted

quoted

1G pages in the linear map caused by pud_set_huge() in  

alloc_init_pud()

quoted

quoted

quoted

being stubbed out. Reverting c742199a fixes the crash.

This patch is there for a reason. Reverting it will break some  

other config.

quoted

Which config? Not reverting it breaks arm64.

quoted

The fix needs to allow it work with all platforms.

Hmm, there was already a report that selftests were failing with this
change:

 

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/CAMuHMdXShORDox-xxaeUfDW3wx2PeggFSqhVSHVZNKCGK-y_vQ@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

quoted

That was a week ago and doesn't seem to have progressed, so I'm  

inclined to

quoted

revert this if it's not resolved this week as we usually use -rc3  

as a base

quoted

for queuing patches for the next release.

quoted

I don't understand, why does arm64 needs these PUD helpers when  

it defines

quoted

quoted

__PAGETABLE_PUD_FOLDED ?

So if I am not mistaken, you modified arch/arm64 MMU code without
understanding it and without cc'ing any of the arm64 maintainers,
ignored reports that they were causing problems, and now you are
objecting to them being reverted because it break 'some other config'?
I don't think that is entirely reasonable, and the fact that the
maintainers weren't even cc'ed on the patch is enough justification to
simply revert it. IMHO.

arm maintainers were in copy, see  
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/73ec95f40cafbbb69bdfb43a7f53876fd845b0ce.1620990479.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu/

I don't know what report you mention, I m only aware of one that I got  
after the start of my holidays and that I plan to handle first week of  
August when I'm back at work.

As I answered to Will, now that we are aware of an issue on Arm64 we  
need to work together and find a fix that works for all.

quoted

quoted

Probably for the huge vmap code; see arch_vmap_pXd_supported(). That also
lines up with the failing selftests afaict.

The patch actually explains it: alloc_init_pud() in the swapper init
code uses it to lay down 1 GB block mappings for the linear map. That
code could quite easily be updated to work around this, but I guess it
would be better to fix this more comprehensively.

quoted

For 4k pages with 3 levels of walk, we want to be able to use 1GB mappings
at level 1 (pgd), 2MB mappings at level 2 (pmd) as well as the usual 4k
page mappings at level 3 (pte).

Yes, we appear to use PUDs for 4k pages kernel regardless of whether
they are folded into PGDs to refer to level 1/1GB block mappings.

And that's probably the source of the misunderstanding, because a 3  
level architecture is supposed to only have pgd, pmd and pud.

Could the problematic arm pud_clear_huge and pud_set_huge be renamed  
pgd_clear_huge and pgd_set_huge ?

Christophe


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