On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 06:11:54PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:

Hi Kevin,

On 09/09/2025 16:38, Alexander Gordeev wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Would that integrate well with LAZY_MMU_DEFAULT etc?

Hmm... I though the idea is to use LAZY_MMU_* by architectures that
want to use it - at least that is how I read the description above.

It is only kasan_populate|depopulate_vmalloc_pte() in generic code
that do not follow this pattern, and it looks as a problem to me.

This discussion also made me realise that this is problematic, as the
LAZY_MMU_{DEFAULT,NESTED} macros were meant only for architectures'
convenience, not for generic code (where lazy_mmu_state_t should ideally
be an opaque type as mentioned above). It almost feels like the kasan
case deserves a different API, because this is not how enter() and
leave() are meant to be used. This would mean quite a bit of churn
though, so maybe just introduce another arch-defined value to pass to
leave() for such a situation - for instance,
arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(LAZY_MMU_FLUSH)?

What about to adjust the semantics of apply_to_page_range() instead?

It currently assumes any caller is fine with apply_to_pte_range() to
enter the lazy mode. By contrast, kasan_(de)populate_vmalloc_pte() are
not fine at all and must leave the lazy mode. That literally suggests
the original assumption is incorrect.

We could change int apply_to_pte_range(..., bool create, ...) to e.g.
apply_to_pte_range(..., unsigned int flags, ...) and introduce a flag
that simply skips entering the lazy mmu mode.

This is pretty much what Ryan proposed [1r] some time ago, although for
a different purpose (avoiding nesting). There wasn't much appetite for
it then, but I agree that this would be a more logical way to go about it.

- Kevin

[1r]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250530140446.2387131-4-ryan.roberts@arm.com/ (local)

May be I missing the point, but I read it as an opposition to the whole
series in general and to the way apply_to_pte_range() would be altered
in particular:

 static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd,
 				     unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
 				     pte_fn_t fn, void *data, bool create,
-				     pgtbl_mod_mask *mask)
+				     pgtbl_mod_mask *mask, bool lazy_mmu)

The idea of instructing apply_to_page_range() to skip the lazy mmu mode
was not countered. Quite opposite, Liam suggested exactly the same:

<quote>
Could we do something like the pgtbl_mod_mask or zap_details and pass
through a struct or one unsigned int for create and lazy_mmu?

These wrappers are terrible for readability and annoying for argument
lists too.

Could we do something like the pgtbl_mod_mask or zap_details and pass
through a struct or one unsigned int for create and lazy_mmu?

At least we'd have better self-documenting code in the wrappers.. and if
we ever need a third boolean, we could avoid multiplying the wrappers
again.
<quote>

Thanks!