Re: [RFC][PATCHSET] VM_FAULT_RETRY fixes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 12:26:39AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:56:22PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> 
> > IMHO it'll be merely impossible to merge things across most (if not to say,
> > all) archs.  It will need to be start from one or at least a few that still
> > shares a major common base - I would still rely on x86 as a start - then we
> > try to use the helper in as much archs as possible.
> > 
> > Even on x86, I do also see challenges so I'm not sure whether a common
> > enough routine can be abstracted indeed.  But I believe there's a way to do
> > this because obviously we still see tons of duplicated logics falling
> > around.  It may definitely need time to think out where's the best spot to
> > start, and how to gradually move towards covering more archs starting from
> > one.
> 
> FWIW, after going through everything from alpha to loongarch (in alphabetic
> order, skipping the itanic) the following seems to be suitable for all of
> them:
> 
> generic_fault(address, flags, vm_flags, regs)
[snip]

After looking through other architectures: that needs changes.

AFAICS, the right approach would be to add a pointer to (uninitialized)
kernel_siginfo.  And let it pass the signal number, etc. through that.
That way all "we want to raise a signal" return values fold together.
*IF* the page fault wants to do something extra on SIGSEGV, but not on
SIGBUS (we have several such), it can key that upon info.si_signo.

Speaking of SIGSEGV, there's a fun situation with VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV:

1) Only x86 and ppc generate VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV in handle_mm_fault()
without hitting WARN_ON_ONCE().  And neither actually returns it
to page fault handler - the conditions that would've led to that
return value (pkey stuff) are checked in the page fault handler
and handle_mm_fault() is not called in such cases.

2) on alpha, hexagon, itanic, loongarch, microblaze, mips, nios2,
openrisc, sparc, um and xtensa #PF handler would end up with SEGV_ACCERR
if it saw VM_FAULT_SIGNAL.

3) on arm, arm64, arc, m68k, powerpc, s390, sh and x86 - SEGV_MAPERR
(except that neither x86 nor powerpc #PF ever see it)

4) on csky and riscv it would end up with BUG()

5) on parisc it's complicated^Wbroken - it tries to decide which
one to use after having unlocked mmap and looking at vma in process.

As it is, VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV had ended up as "we need to report some
error to get_user_pages() and similar callers in cases when
page fault handler would've detected pkey problem and refused
to call handle_mm_fault()", with several places where it's
"we had been called with bogus arguments; printk and return
something to indicate the things had gone wrong".  It used to
have other uses, but this is what it had become now - grep and
you'll see.

AFAICS, all checks for it in page fault handlers are pretty much
dead code...



[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux