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: <20230512235755.1589034-1-pcc@google.com> <20230512235755.1589034-2-pcc@google.com>
 <7471013e-4afb-e445-5985-2441155fc82c@redhat.com> <ZGJtJobLrBg3PtHm@arm.com>
 <ZGLC0T32sgVkG5kX@google.com> <851940cd-64f1-9e59-3de9-b50701a99281@redhat.com>
 <CAMn1gO79e+v3ceNY0YfwrYTvU1monKWmTedXsYjtucmM7s=MVA@mail.gmail.com> <c9f1fc7c-62a2-4768-7992-52e34ec36d0f@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <c9f1fc7c-62a2-4768-7992-52e34ec36d0f@redhat.com>
From:   Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 13:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMn1gO7t0S7CmeU=59Lq10N0WvrKebM=W91W7sa+SQoG13Uppw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: Move arch_do_swap_page() call to before swap_free()
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UXVuLXdlaSBMaW4gKOael+e+pOW0tCk=?= 
        <Qun-wei.Lin@mediatek.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "surenb@google.com" <surenb@google.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?Q2hpbndlbiBDaGFuZyAo5by16Yym5paHKQ==?= 
        <chinwen.chang@mediatek.com>,
        "kasan-dev@googlegroups.com" <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?S3Vhbi1ZaW5nIExlZSAo5p2O5Yag56mOKQ==?= 
        <Kuan-Ying.Lee@mediatek.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?Q2FzcGVyIExpICjmnY7kuK3mpq4p?= <casper.li@mediatek.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        vincenzo.frascino@arm.com,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>, will@kernel.org,
        eugenis@google.com, Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:30=E2=80=AFAM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com=
> wrote:
>
> >> Would the idea be to fail swap_readpage() on the one that comes last,
> >> simply retrying to lookup the page?
> >
> > The idea would be that T2's arch_swap_readpage() could potentially not
> > find tags if it ran after swap_free(), so T2 would produce a page
> > without restored tags. But that wouldn't matter, because T1 reaching
> > swap_free() means that T2 will follow the goto at [1] after waiting
> > for T1 to unlock at [2], and T2's page will be discarded.
>
> Ah, right.
>
> >
> >> This might be a naive question, but how does MTE play along with share=
d
> >> anonymous pages?
> >
> > It should work fine. shmem_writepage() calls swap_writepage() which
> > calls arch_prepare_to_swap() to write the tags. And
> > shmem_swapin_folio() has a call to arch_swap_restore() to restore
> > them.
>
> Sorry, I meant actual anonymous memory pages, not shmem. Like, anonymous
> pages that are COW-shared due to fork() or KSM.
>
> How does MTE, in general, interact with that? Assume one process ends up
> modifying the tags ... and the page is COW-shared with a different
> process that should not observe these tag modifications.

Tag modifications cause write faults if the page is read-only, so for
COW shared pages we would end up copying the page in the usual way,
which on arm64 would copy the tags as well via the copy_highpage hook
(see arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c).

Peter