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;
Message-ID: <f33b1f78-6556-bc93-ec3c-2632669b5c35@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 20:11:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/14] userfaultfd: set dirty and young on
 writeprotect
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
References: <20220718120212.3180-1-namit@vmware.com>
 <20220718120212.3180-2-namit@vmware.com>
 <09d84297-65d5-a3df-fdc0-a7168cdb0798@redhat.com>
 <99AFB0A0-B2F8-420A-8164-1705EC14B255@vmware.com>
 <97e82e31-2411-501e-d401-d175eb24642f@redhat.com>
 <18EDDBB1-255A-475F-812A-8CA947493EC8@vmware.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <18EDDBB1-255A-475F-812A-8CA947493EC8@vmware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 20.07.22 20:09, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2022, at 11:00 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> My patch review skills have seen better days. I thought you'd be
>> removing the pte_write() check ... :( Tired eyes ...
>>
>>> Having said that, I do notice now that pte_mkdirty() should not be done
>>> only this condition is fulfilled. Instead we should just have
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> if (will_need) {
>>> ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent);
>>> if (pte_write(ptent))
>>> ptent = pte_mkdirty(ptent);
>>> }
>>
>> As can_change_pte_writable() will fail if it stumbles over a !pte_dirty
>> page in current code ... so I assume you would have that code before the
>> actual pte_mkwrite() logic, correct?
> 
> No, I thought this should go after for 2 reasons:
> 
> 1. You want to allow the PTE to be made writable following the
> can_change_pte_writable().
> 
> 2. You do not want to set a non-writable PTE as dirty, especially since it
> might then be used to determine that the PTE can become writable. Doing so
> would circumvent cases in which set_page_dirty() needs to be called and
> break things down.

The I'm confused how can_change_pte_writable() would ever allow for
that. Best to show me the code :)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb