Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1656777473-73887-1-git-send-email-guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704103523.GC31437@willie-the-truck> <73f0c53b-fd17-c5e9-3773-1d71e564eb50@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704111402.GA31553@willie-the-truck> <4accaeda-572f-f72d-5067-2d0999e4d00a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704131516.GC31684@willie-the-truck> <2ae1cae0-ee26-aa59-7ed9-231d67194dce@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704142313.GE31684@willie-the-truck> <6977c692-78ca-5a67-773e-0389c85f2650@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20220704163815.GA32177@willie-the-truck>
In-Reply-To: <20220704163815.GA32177@willie-the-truck>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jul 2022 19:09:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEvY5QXOUrXZ7rBp9As=65uTTFRSSq+FPt-n4M2P-_VtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: mm: fix linear mem mapping access performance degradation
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     "guanghui.fgh" <guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>,
        baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, jianyong.wu@arm.com,
        james.morse@arm.com, quic_qiancai@quicinc.com,
        christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, jonathan@marek.ca,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com,
        anshuman.khandual@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org,
        geert+renesas@glider.be, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        yaohongbo@linux.alibaba.com, alikernel-developer@linux.alibaba.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 18:38, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:34:07PM +0800, guanghui.fgh wrote:
> > Thanks.
> >
> > =E5=9C=A8 2022/7/4 22:23, Will Deacon =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
> > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 10:11:27PM +0800, guanghui.fgh wrote:
...
> > > > Namely, it's need to use non block/section mapping for crashkernel =
mem
> > > > before shringking.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, but we can change arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres() not t=
o do
> > > that if we're leaving the thing mapped, no?
> > >
> > I think we should use arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres for crashkernel =
mem.
> >
> > Because when invalid crashkernel mem pagetable, there is no chance to r=
d/wr
> > the crashkernel mem by mistake.
> >
> > If we don't use arch_kexec_[un]protect_crashkres to invalid crashkernel=
 mem
> > pagetable, there maybe some write operations to these mem by mistake wh=
ich
> > may cause crashkernel boot error and vmcore saving error.
>
> I don't really buy this line of reasoning. The entire main kernel is
> writable, so why do we care about protecting the crashkernel so much? The
> _code_ to launch the crash kernel is writable! If you care about preventi=
ng
> writes to memory which should not be writable, then you should use
> rodata=3Dfull.
>

This is not entirely true - the core kernel text and rodata are
remapped r/o in the linear map, whereas all module code and rodata are
left writable when rodata !=3D full.

But the conclusion is the same, imo: if you can't be bothered to
protect a good chunk of the code and rodata that the kernel relies on,
why should the crashkernel be treated any differently?