Thread (29 messages) 29 messages, 3 authors, 2024-09-24

Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] mm: page_vma_mapped_walk: map_pte() use pte_offset_map_rw_nolock()

From: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Date: 2024-09-24 08:40:06
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, lkml

On Sep 24, 2024, at 16:33, Qi Zheng [off-list ref] wrote:



On 2024/9/24 16:25, Muchun Song wrote:
quoted
quoted
On Sep 24, 2024, at 14:11, Qi Zheng [off-list ref] wrote:

In the caller of map_pte(), we may modify the pvmw->pte after acquiring
the pvmw->ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). At
this time, the pte_same() check is not performed after the pvmw->ptl held,
so we should get pmdval and do pmd_same() check to ensure the stability of
pvmw->pmd.

Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <redacted>
---
mm/page_vma_mapped.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
index ae5cc42aa2087..6410f29b37c1b 100644
--- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
+++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
@@ -13,9 +13,11 @@ static inline bool not_found(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
   return false;
}

-static bool map_pte(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, spinlock_t **ptlp)
+static bool map_pte(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, pmd_t *pmdvalp,
+            spinlock_t **ptlp)
{
   pte_t ptent;
+    pmd_t pmdval;
Why declare a new variable? Can’t we use *pmdvalp instead?
It's just a coding habit, both are fine for me.
Agree. But sometime it could make code look a little simpler.
quoted
quoted
   if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_SYNC) {
       /* Use the stricter lookup */
@@ -25,6 +27,7 @@ static bool map_pte(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, spinlock_t **ptlp)
       return !!pvmw->pte;
   }

+again:
   /*
    * It is important to return the ptl corresponding to pte,
    * in case *pvmw->pmd changes underneath us; so we need to
@@ -32,10 +35,11 @@ static bool map_pte(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, spinlock_t **ptlp)
    * proceeds to loop over next ptes, and finds a match later.
    * Though, in most cases, page lock already protects this.
    */
-    pvmw->pte = pte_offset_map_nolock(pvmw->vma->vm_mm, pvmw->pmd,
-                      pvmw->address, ptlp);
+    pvmw->pte = pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(pvmw->vma->vm_mm, pvmw->pmd,
+                         pvmw->address, &pmdval, ptlp);
   if (!pvmw->pte)
       return false;
+    *pmdvalp = pmdval;
For instance, here, it is unnecessary if pmdvalp is passed directly to
pte_offset_map_rw_nolock.
quoted
quoted
   ptent = ptep_get(pvmw->pte);
@@ -67,8 +71,13 @@ static bool map_pte(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, spinlock_t **ptlp)
   } else if (!pte_present(ptent)) {
       return false;
   }
+    spin_lock(*ptlp);
+    if (unlikely(!pmd_same(pmdval, pmdp_get_lockless(pvmw->pmd)))) {
+        pte_unmap_unlock(pvmw->pte, *ptlp);
+        goto again;
+    }
   pvmw->ptl = *ptlp;
-    spin_lock(pvmw->ptl);
+
   return true;
}
@@ -278,7 +287,7 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
           step_forward(pvmw, PMD_SIZE);
           continue;
       }
-        if (!map_pte(pvmw, &ptl)) {
+        if (!map_pte(pvmw, &pmde, &ptl)) {
           if (!pvmw->pte)
               goto restart;
           goto next_pte;
@@ -307,6 +316,12 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
       if (!pvmw->ptl) {
           pvmw->ptl = ptl;
           spin_lock(pvmw->ptl);
+            if (unlikely(!pmd_same(pmde, pmdp_get_lockless(pvmw->pmd)))) {
+                pte_unmap_unlock(pvmw->pte, pvmw->ptl);
+                pvmw->ptl = NULL;
+                pvmw->pte = NULL;
+                goto restart;
+            }
       }
       goto this_pte;
   } while (pvmw->address < end);
--
2.20.1

Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help