| Message ID | 20190525133203.25853-5-hch@lst.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/6] MIPS: use the generic get_user_pages_fast code | expand |
[ Adding Khalid, who added the sparc64 code ] On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:32 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote: > > This will allow sparc64 to override its ADI tags for > get_user_pages and get_user_pages_fast. I have no idea why this > is not required for plain old get_user_pages, but it keeps the > existing sparc64 behavior. This is actually generic. ARM64 has tagged pointers too. Right now the system call interfaces are all supposed to mask off the tags, but there's been noise about having the kernel understand them. That said: > +#ifndef gup_fixup_start_addr > +#define gup_fixup_start_addr(start) (start) > +#endif I'd rather name this much more specifically (ie make it very much about "clean up pointer tags") and I'm also not clear on why sparc64 actually wants this. I thought the sparc64 rules were the same as the (current) arm64 rules: any addresses passed to the kernel have to be the non-tagged ones. As you say, nothing *else* in the kernel does that address cleanup, why should get_user_pages_fast() do it? David? Khalid? Why does sparc64 actually need this? It looks like the generic get_user_pages() doesn't do it. Linus
On 5/25/19 11:05 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [ Adding Khalid, who added the sparc64 code ] > > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:32 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote: >> >> This will allow sparc64 to override its ADI tags for >> get_user_pages and get_user_pages_fast. I have no idea why this >> is not required for plain old get_user_pages, but it keeps the >> existing sparc64 behavior. > > This is actually generic. ARM64 has tagged pointers too. Right now the > system call interfaces are all supposed to mask off the tags, but > there's been noise about having the kernel understand them. > > That said: > >> +#ifndef gup_fixup_start_addr >> +#define gup_fixup_start_addr(start) (start) >> +#endif > > I'd rather name this much more specifically (ie make it very much > about "clean up pointer tags") and I'm also not clear on why sparc64 > actually wants this. I thought the sparc64 rules were the same as the > (current) arm64 rules: any addresses passed to the kernel have to be > the non-tagged ones. > > As you say, nothing *else* in the kernel does that address cleanup, > why should get_user_pages_fast() do it? > > David? Khalid? Why does sparc64 actually need this? It looks like the > generic get_user_pages() doesn't do it. > There is another discussion going on about tagged pointers on ARM64 and intersection with sparc64 code. I agree there is a generic need to mask off tags for kernel use now that ARM64 is also looking into supporting memory tagging. The need comes from sparc64 not storing tagged address in VMAs. It is not practical to store tagged addresses in VMAs because manipulation of address tags is done entirely in userspace on sparc64. Userspace is free to change tags on an address range at any time without involving kernel and constantly rotating tags is actually a security feature even. This makes it impractical for kernel to try to keep up with constantly changing tagged addresses in VMAs. Untagged addresses in VMAs means any find_vma() and brethren calls need to be passed an untagged address. On sparc64, my intent was to support address tagging for dynamically allocated data buffers only (malloc, mmap and shm specifically) and not for any generic system calls which limited the scope and amount of untagging needed in the kernel. ARM64 is working to add transparent tagged address support at C library level. Adding tagged addresses to C library requires every possible call into kernel to either handle tagged addresses or untag address at some point. Andrey found out it is not as easy as untagging addresses in functions that search through vma. Callers of find_vma() and others tend to do address arithmetic on the address stored in vma that is returned. This requires a more complex solution than just stripping tags in vma lookup routines. Since untagging addresses is a generic need required for far more than gup, I prefer the way Andrey wrote it - <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10923637/> -- Khalid
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 09:57:25AM -0600, Khalid Aziz wrote: > Since untagging addresses is a generic need required for far more than > gup, I prefer the way Andrey wrote it - > <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10923637/> Linus, what do you think of picking up that trivial prep patch for 5.2? That way the arm64 and get_user_pages series can progress independently for 5.3.
Hi Christoph, On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 14:33, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote: > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > index f173fcbaf1b2..1c21ecfbf38b 100644 > --- a/mm/gup.c > +++ b/mm/gup.c > @@ -2117,6 +2117,10 @@ static void gup_pgd_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, > } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != end); > } > > +#ifndef gup_fixup_start_addr > +#define gup_fixup_start_addr(start) (start) > +#endif As you pointed out in a subsequent reply, we could use the untagged_addr() macro from Andrey (or a shorter "untag_addr" if you want it to look like a verb). > #ifndef gup_fast_permitted > /* > * Check if it's allowed to use __get_user_pages_fast() for the range, or > @@ -2145,7 +2149,7 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write, > unsigned long flags; > int nr = 0; > > - start &= PAGE_MASK; > + start = gup_fixup_start_addr(start) & PAGE_MASK; > len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT; > end = start + len; > > @@ -2218,7 +2222,7 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, > unsigned long addr, len, end; > int nr = 0, ret = 0; > > - start &= PAGE_MASK; > + start = gup_fixup_start_addr(start) & PAGE_MASK; > addr = start; > len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT; > end = start + len; In Andrey's patch [1] we don't fix __get_user_pages_fast(), only __get_user_pages() as it needs to do a find_vma() search. I wonder whether this is actually necessary for the *_fast() versions. If the top byte is non-zero (i.e. tagged address), 'end' would also have the same tag. The page table macros like pgd_index() and pgd_addr_end() already take care of masking out the top bits (at least for arm64) since they need to work on kernel address with the top bits all 1. So gup_pgd_range() should cope with tagged addresses already. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d234cd71774f35229bdfc0a793c34d6712b73093.1557160186.git.andreyknvl@google.com/
diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c index f173fcbaf1b2..1c21ecfbf38b 100644 --- a/mm/gup.c +++ b/mm/gup.c @@ -2117,6 +2117,10 @@ static void gup_pgd_range(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != end); } +#ifndef gup_fixup_start_addr +#define gup_fixup_start_addr(start) (start) +#endif + #ifndef gup_fast_permitted /* * Check if it's allowed to use __get_user_pages_fast() for the range, or @@ -2145,7 +2149,7 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write, unsigned long flags; int nr = 0; - start &= PAGE_MASK; + start = gup_fixup_start_addr(start) & PAGE_MASK; len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT; end = start + len; @@ -2218,7 +2222,7 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, unsigned long addr, len, end; int nr = 0, ret = 0; - start &= PAGE_MASK; + start = gup_fixup_start_addr(start) & PAGE_MASK; addr = start; len = (unsigned long) nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT; end = start + len;
This will allow sparc64 to override its ADI tags for get_user_pages and get_user_pages_fast. I have no idea why this is not required for plain old get_user_pages, but it keeps the existing sparc64 behavior. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> --- mm/gup.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)