Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 12:41:38 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de,
        James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, deller@gmx.de,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
        ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, dalias@libc.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        arnd@arndb.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: rmap: Fix CONT-PTE/PMD size hugetlb issue when
 unmapping
Message-ID: <YnlEQvipCM6hnIYT@xz-m1.local>
References: <cover.1651216964.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <c91e04ebb792ef7b72966edea8bd6fa2dfa5bfa7.1651216964.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220429220214.4cfc5539@thinkpad>
 <bcb4a3b0-4fcd-af3a-2a2c-fd662d9eaba9@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220502160232.589a6111@thinkpad>
 <48a05075-a323-e7f1-9e99-6c0d106eb2cb@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220503120343.6264e126@thinkpad>
 <927dfbf4-c899-b88a-4d58-36a637d611f9@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <927dfbf4-c899-b88a-4d58-36a637d611f9@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 12:07:13PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 5/3/22 03:03, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:19:46 +0800
> > Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2022 10:02 PM, Gerald Schaefer wrote:

[...]

> >> Please see previous code, we'll use the original pte value to check if 
> >> it is uffd-wp armed, and if need to mark it dirty though the hugetlbfs 
> >> is set noop_dirty_folio().
> >>
> >> pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, address, pvmw.pte, pteval);
> > 
> > Uh, ok, that wouldn't work on s390, but we also don't have
> > CONFIG_PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP / HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP set, so
> > I guess we will be fine (for now).
> > 
> > Still, I find it a bit unsettling that pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed()
> > would work on a potential hugetlb *pte, directly de-referencing it
> > instead of using huge_ptep_get().
> > 
> > The !pte_none(*pte) check at the beginning would be broken in the
> > hugetlb case for s390 (not sure about other archs, but I think s390
> > might be the only exception strictly requiring huge_ptep_get()
> > for de-referencing hugetlb *pte pointers).

We could have used is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma) within the helper so as to
properly use either generic pte or hugetlb version of pte fetching.  We may
want to conditionally do set_[huge_]pte_at() too at the end.

I could prepare a patch for that even if it's not really anything urgently
needed. I assume that won't need to block this patchset since we need the
pteval for pte_dirty() check anyway and uffd-wp definitely needs it too.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu