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;
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 21:35:20 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        aarcange@redhat.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        jroedel@suse.de, ubizjak@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] mm: Update ptep_get_lockless()s comment
Message-ID: <Y1rdeFdYSBXOvTXz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20221022114424.515572025@infradead.org>
 <2c800ed1-d17a-def4-39e1-09281ee78d05@nvidia.com>
 <Y1ZGNwUEdm15W6Xz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAG48ez3fG=WnvbiE5mJaD66_gJj_hohnV8CqBG9eNdjd7pJW3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1fsYwshJ93FT21r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAG48ez3VE+3dVdUMK+Pg_942gR+h_TCcSaFxGwCbNfh3W+mfOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1f7YvKuwOl1XEwU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAG48ez05gBiB2w7bL_3O_OUoBWazmHnRwMiuni_wQyXBUcaxbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1oub9MvqwGBlHkq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=wihPdOtXgJ32pLB6Xd-UvnaZW9YvOOjM24JGYRjNHeykA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wihPdOtXgJ32pLB6Xd-UvnaZW9YvOOjM24JGYRjNHeykA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


Just two quick remarks; it's far to late to really think :-)

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 11:13:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> But "fullmm" is probably even stronger than "mmap write-lock" in that
> it should also mean "no other CPU can be actively using this" - either
> for hardware page table walking, or for GUP.

IIRC fullmm is really: this is the last user and we're taking the whole
mm down -- IOW exit().

> For example, MADV_DONTNEED does this all with just the mmap lock held
> for reading, so we *unless* we have that 'force_flush', we can
> 
>  (a) have another CPU continue to use the old stale TLB entry for quite a while
> 
>  (b) yet another CPU (that didn't have a TLB entry, or wanted to write
> to a read-only one ) could take a page fault, and install a *new* PTE
> entry in the same slot, all at the same time.
> 
> Now, that's clearly *very* confusing. But being confusing may not mean
> "wrong" - we're still delaying the free of the old entry, so there's
> no use-after-free.

Do we worry about CPU errata where things go side-ways if multiple CPUs
have inconsistent TLB state?