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;
Date:   Thu, 1 Nov 2018 09:31:21 +0100
From:   Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
To:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Cc:     kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/9] KVM: arm/arm64: Ensure only THP is candidate for
 adjustment
Message-ID: <20181101083121.GG12057@e113682-lin.lund.arm.com>
References: <20181001155443.23032-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <20181001155443.23032-2-punit.agrawal@arm.com>
 <20181031143646.GE12057@e113682-lin.lund.arm.com>
 <87h8h2rwwr.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87h8h2rwwr.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:52:20PM +0000, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 04:54:35PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> >> PageTransCompoundMap() returns true for hugetlbfs and THP
> >> hugepages. This behaviour incorrectly leads to stage 2 faults for
> >> unsupported hugepage sizes (e.g., 64K hugepage with 4K pages) to be
> >> treated as THP faults.
> >> 
> >> Tighten the check to filter out hugetlbfs pages. This also leads to
> >> consistently mapping all unsupported hugepage sizes as PTE level
> >> entries at stage 2.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> >> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.13+
> >
> >
> > Hmm, this function is only actually called from user_mem_abort() if we
> > have (!hugetlb), so I'm not sure the cc stable here was actually
> > warranted, nor that this patch is strictly necessary.
> >
> > It doesn't hurt, and makes the code potentially more robust for the
> > future though.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
> 
> !hugetlb is only true for hugepage sizes supported at stage 2. The
> function also got called for unsupported hugepage size at stage 2, e.g.,
> 64k hugepage with 4k page size, which then ended up doing the wrong
> thing.
> 
> Hope that adds some context. I should've added this to the commit log.
> 

To be fair you did say that this was for unsupported hugepage sizes.

Thanks for the explanation.


    Christoffer