Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 22:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 0/3] Move kernel mapping outside the linear mapping
In-Reply-To: <0bb85388-c4e1-523a-9bf3-0ccec6c4041e@ghiti.fr>
CC:     corbet@lwn.net, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, glider@google.com, dvyukov@google.com,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
To:     alex@ghiti.fr
Message-ID: <mhng-08cda2bf-fcd9-4848-b549-632d015e1acd@palmerdabbelt-glaptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 01:26:47 PST (-0800), alex@ghiti.fr wrote:
> Hi Palmer,
>
> Le 3/9/21 à 9:54 PM, Palmer Dabbelt a écrit :
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:04:50 PST (-0800), alex@ghiti.fr wrote:
>>> I decided to split sv48 support in small series to ease the review.
>>>
>>> This patchset pushes the kernel mapping (modules and BPF too) to the last
>>> 4GB of the 64bit address space, this allows to:
>>> - implement relocatable kernel (that will come later in another
>>>   patchset) that requires to move the kernel mapping out of the linear
>>>   mapping to avoid to copy the kernel at a different physical address.
>>> - have a single kernel that is not relocatable (and then that avoids the
>>>   performance penalty imposed by PIC kernel) for both sv39 and sv48.
>>>
>>> The first patch implements this behaviour, the second patch introduces a
>>> documentation that describes the virtual address space layout of the
>>> 64bit
>>> kernel and the last patch is taken from my sv48 series where I simply
>>> added
>>> the dump of the modules/kernel/BPF mapping.
>>>
>>> I removed the Reviewed-by on the first patch since it changed enough from
>>> last time and deserves a second look.
>>>
>>> Alexandre Ghiti (3):
>>>   riscv: Move kernel mapping outside of linear mapping
>>>   Documentation: riscv: Add documentation that describes the VM layout
>>>   riscv: Prepare ptdump for vm layout dynamic addresses
>>>
>>>  Documentation/riscv/index.rst       |  1 +
>>>  Documentation/riscv/vm-layout.rst   | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  arch/riscv/boot/loader.lds.S        |  3 +-
>>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/page.h       | 18 ++++++-
>>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/pgtable.h    | 37 +++++++++----
>>>  arch/riscv/include/asm/set_memory.h |  1 +
>>>  arch/riscv/kernel/head.S            |  3 +-
>>>  arch/riscv/kernel/module.c          |  6 +--
>>>  arch/riscv/kernel/setup.c           |  3 ++
>>>  arch/riscv/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S     |  3 +-
>>>  arch/riscv/mm/fault.c               | 13 +++++
>>>  arch/riscv/mm/init.c                | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>  arch/riscv/mm/kasan_init.c          |  9 ++++
>>>  arch/riscv/mm/physaddr.c            |  2 +-
>>>  arch/riscv/mm/ptdump.c              | 67 +++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>  15 files changed, 258 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
>>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/riscv/vm-layout.rst
>>
>> This generally looks good, but I'm getting a bunch of checkpatch
>> warnings and some conflicts, do you mind fixing those up (and including
>> your other kasan patch, as that's likely to conflict)?
>
>
> I fixed a few checkpatch warnings and rebased on top of for-next but had
> not conflicts.
>
> I have just sent the v2.

Thanks.  These (and the second patch of the one I just put on fixes) are
for-next things, so I'm not going to get a look at them tonight because I want
to make sure we don't have any more fixes outstanding.