Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp2374128wrg; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:41:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2258w0V1Ah3S9HxTt3RvAAmXbfwhrbf7Pf1gVfjdnGKXYTlpUe9OwhlRN99uq0LgBAazFzA+ X-Received: by 10.99.110.131 with SMTP id j125mr6680493pgc.382.1519332062303; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:41:02 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519332062; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=kuSbGpUhLSeHjAY7d3yzWo97lRqNVIHCt9CbHdSh49dsA4su2XWEqUJm2cEJErKETJ XEv0RGK9iOSx32xIrm4Lsj3Ovj7YszDVXLvn7MNn8A2Be6dsncvXowM7yOhpEeSq0dtI EB07eRwAbL0ycAIKPFUjvvPCWKZF1A5o+BRpusA5Gz6FFdaoTXtvdAyMiY5sGzx1UToC beL112QB3z5Qv/nhnbaeWpoPGNS0vKKlvxTwAaQLj+V2iDHomzZ4k1+tgVAzee8U7s9Q 86H95IbMUko5s4SXqZlINv/rgkjYy/7udxJS15g7aR7xiC3gLbQdQhZGGswTHB6Q6tfT AvLA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date :from:cc:to:subject:arc-authentication-results; bh=ctyMdjCHsUeRwj3T3fpJvgxWzczL1fX6Wffr9Qhkio4=; b=rLW+LSUkIASg2qKyzn6qDCHBW9C+CvMGPGnabV+PeGb+YvsIdjU5vGPE9wzGd89KqG Q7TGWj9pNWAQrgIdyvKyBAmmpoaFkGHZlXw5N9Bpf50tkms285g0NHxmyCUv6LGveitR OCnWi2CNveyhc9yC4otfAB2I6+9ZOe/D3qNG3VkgqQRl48Wr4W0Tp52kZAq3PAwTvp+t pUP2bJImpjRDeynRtsme62CKwMD8HRVYi76xDer3tJ9L7VVRtD8/0MVU7RGoYihivO9B dOxv5eP8Wipik+t7i2NY9/o7K0VzNFUKQ+3zJtpfFvTVrRzDxICMiCOK13Uhgctyzh1j pQLA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j91-v6si557052pld.353.2018.02.22.12.40.46; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:41:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751716AbeBVUj2 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:39:28 -0500 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:31804 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751376AbeBVUhD (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:37:03 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2018 12:37:03 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,378,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="29098085" Received: from viggo.jf.intel.com (HELO localhost.localdomain) ([10.54.39.119]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Feb 2018 12:37:02 -0800 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 02/10] x86/mm: undo double _PAGE_PSE clearing To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Dave Hansen , aarcange@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, keescook@google.com, hughd@google.com, jgross@suse.com, x86@kernel.org, namit@vmware.com From: Dave Hansen Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:36:54 -0800 References: <20180222203651.B776810C@viggo.jf.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20180222203651.B776810C@viggo.jf.intel.com> Message-Id: <20180222203654.F87D4CFF@viggo.jf.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Dave Hansen When clearing _PAGE_PRESENT on a huge page, we need to be careful to also clear _PAGE_PSE, otherwise it might still get confused for a valid large page table entry. We do that near the spot where we *set* _PAGE_PSE. That's fine, but it's unnecessary. pgprot_large_2_4k() already did it. BTW, I also noticed that pgprot_large_2_4k() and pgprot_4k_2_large() are not symmetric. pgprot_large_2_4k() clears _PAGE_PSE (because it is aliased to _PAGE_PAT) but pgprot_4k_2_large() does not put _PAGE_PSE back. Bummer. Also, add some comments and change "promote" to "move". "Promote" seems an odd word to move when we are logically moving a bit to a lower bit position. Also add an extra line return to make it clear to which line the comment applies. Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen Cc: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kees Cook Cc: Hugh Dickins Cc: Juergen Gross Cc: x86@kernel.org Cc: Nadav Amit --- b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 9 ++++++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff -puN arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c~kpti-undo-double-_PAGE_PSE-clear arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c~kpti-undo-double-_PAGE_PSE-clear 2018-02-22 12:36:18.072036555 -0800 +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c 2018-02-22 12:36:18.076036555 -0800 @@ -583,6 +583,7 @@ try_preserve_large_page(pte_t *kpte, uns * up accordingly. */ old_pte = *kpte; + /* Clear PSE (aka _PAGE_PAT) and move PAT bit to correct position */ req_prot = pgprot_large_2_4k(old_prot); pgprot_val(req_prot) &= ~pgprot_val(cpa->mask_clr); @@ -597,8 +598,6 @@ try_preserve_large_page(pte_t *kpte, uns req_prot = pgprot_clear_protnone_bits(req_prot); if (pgprot_val(req_prot) & _PAGE_PRESENT) pgprot_val(req_prot) |= _PAGE_PSE; - else - pgprot_val(req_prot) &= ~_PAGE_PSE; req_prot = canon_pgprot(req_prot); /* @@ -684,8 +683,12 @@ __split_large_page(struct cpa_data *cpa, switch (level) { case PG_LEVEL_2M: ref_prot = pmd_pgprot(*(pmd_t *)kpte); - /* clear PSE and promote PAT bit to correct position */ + /* + * Clear PSE (aka _PAGE_PAT) and move + * PAT bit to correct position. + */ ref_prot = pgprot_large_2_4k(ref_prot); + ref_pfn = pmd_pfn(*(pmd_t *)kpte); break; _