Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:51:51 +0100
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@cavium.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
CC: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Fix memmap to be initialized for the entire
 section
Message-ID: <20161124135151.GJ10776@rric.localdomain>
References: <20161028091905.GM22012@rric.localdomain>
 <20161107210514.GP20591@arm.com>
 <20161109195132.GZ22012@rric.localdomain>
 <20161117142528.GJ22855@arm.com>
 <20161117151805.GJ2151@rric.localdomain>
 <CAKv+Gu-2uGJGovqQL-gbB54u=fQ9L9YUbDdRo6u3oWqF6znn6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161123211538.GH10776@rric.localdomain>
 <CAKv+Gu8aWpz5vXSWdKHwL5Xk2aWyQBOoR1WHOnVPaWZOwqojBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161124134238.GI10776@rric.localdomain>
 <CAKv+Gu_Ug3XOD6jy5xziy1pS7WV=TC0RLD4j3DT6nytujQDzRQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu_Ug3XOD6jy5xziy1pS7WV=TC0RLD4j3DT6nytujQDzRQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2016 13:52:09.0820 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR07MB2344
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2016
Lines: 47

On 24.11.16 13:44:31, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 24 November 2016 at 13:42, Robert Richter <robert.richter@cavium.com> wrote:
> > On 23.11.16 21:25:06, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> Why? MEMREMAP_WB is used often, among other things for mapping
> >> firmware tables, which are marked as NOMAP, so in these cases, the
> >> linear address is not mapped.
> >
> > If fw tables are mapped wb, that is wrong and needs a separate fix.
> >
> 
> Why is that wrong?

The whole issue with mapping acpi tables is not marking them cachable,
what wb does. Otherwise we could just use linear mapping for those mem
ranges.

> >> > If you think pfn_valid() is wrong here, I am happy to send a patch
> >> > that fixes this by using page_is_ram(). In any case, the worst case
> >> > that may happen is to behave the same as v4.4, we might fix then the
> >> > wrong use of pfn_valid() where it is not correctly used to check for
> >> > ram.
> >> >
> >>
> >> page_is_ram() uses string comparisons to look for regions called
> >> 'System RAM'. Is that something we can tolerate for each pfn_valid()
> >> calll?
> >>
> >> Perhaps the solution is to reimplement page_is_ram() for arm64 using
> >> memblock_is_memory() instead, But that still means we need to modify
> >> the generic memremap() code first to switch to it before changing the
> >> arm64 implementation of pfn_valid
> >
> > No, that's not the solution. pfn_valid() should just check if there is
> > a valid struct page, as other archs do. And if there is a mis-use of
> > pfn_valid() to check for ram, only that calls should be fixed to use
> > page_is_ram(), however this is implemented, or something appropriate.
> > But I don't see any problematic code, and if so, I will fix that.
> >
> 
> memremap() uses pfn_valid() to decide whether some address is covered
> by the linear mapping. If we correct pfn_valid() to adhere to your
> definition, we will need to fix memremap() first in any case.

As said, will fix that if needed. But I think the caller is wrong
then.

-Robert