On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:00:30AM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:54:02AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 08:20:10PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 11:02:53AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > + if (uffd_wp_resolve) {
> > > > > > > + /* If the fault is resolved already, skip */
> > > > > > > + if (!pte_uffd_wp(*pte))
> > > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > > + page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, oldpte);
> > > > > > > + if (!page || page_mapcount(page) > 1) {
> > > > > > > + struct vm_fault vmf = {
> > > > > > > + .vma = vma,
> > > > > > > + .address = addr & PAGE_MASK,
> > > > > > > + .page = page,
> > > > > > > + .orig_pte = oldpte,
> > > > > > > + .pmd = pmd,
> > > > > > > + /* pte and ptl not needed */
> > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > + vm_fault_t ret;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (page)
> > > > > > > + get_page(page);
> > > > > > > + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> > > > > > > + pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> > > > > > > + ret = wp_page_copy(&vmf);
> > > > > > > + /* PTE is changed, or OOM */
> > > > > > > + if (ret == 0)
> > > > > > > + /* It's done by others */
> > > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is wrong if ret == 0 you still need to remap the pte before
> > > > > > continuing as otherwise you will go to next pte without the page
> > > > > > table lock for the directory. So 0 case must be handled after
> > > > > > arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode() below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry i should have catch that in previous review.
> > > > >
> > > > > My fault to not have noticed it since the very beginning... thanks for
> > > > > spotting that.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm squashing below changes into the patch:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well thinking of this some more i think you should use do_wp_page() and
> > > > not wp_page_copy() it would avoid bunch of code above and also you are
> > > > not properly handling KSM page or page in the swap cache. Instead of
> > > > duplicating same code that is in do_wp_page() it would be better to call
> > > > it here.
> > >
> > > Yeah it makes sense to me. Then here's my plan:
> > >
> > > - I'll need to drop previous patch "export wp_page_copy" since then
> > > it'll be not needed
> > >
> > > - I'll introduce another patch to split current do_wp_page() and
> > > introduce function "wp_page_copy_cont" (better suggestion on the
> > > naming would be welcomed) which contains most of the wp handling
> > > that'll be needed for change_pte_range() in this patch and isolate
> > > the uffd handling:
> > >
> > > static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > __releases(vmf->ptl)
> > > {
> > > struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> > >
> > > if (userfaultfd_pte_wp(vma, *vmf->pte)) {
> > > pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> > > return handle_userfault(vmf, VM_UFFD_WP);
> > > }
> > >
> > > return do_wp_page_cont(vmf);
> > > }
> > >
> > > Then I can probably use do_wp_page_cont() in this patch.
> >
> > Instead i would keep the do_wp_page name and do:
> > static vm_fault_t do_userfaultfd_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf) {
> > ... // what you have above
> > return do_wp_page(vmf);
> > }
> >
> > Naming wise i think it would be better to keep do_wp_page() as
> > is.
>
> In case I misunderstood... what I've proposed will be simply:
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 64bd8075f054..ab98a1eb4702 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2497,6 +2497,14 @@ static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> return handle_userfault(vmf, VM_UFFD_WP);
> }
>
> + return do_wp_page_cont(vmf);
> +}
> +
> +vm_fault_t do_wp_page_cont(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> + __releases(vmf->ptl)
> +{
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> +
> vmf->page = vm_normal_page(vma, vmf->address, vmf->orig_pte);
> if (!vmf->page) {
> /*
>
> And the other proposal is:
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 64bd8075f054..a73792127553 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2469,6 +2469,8 @@ static vm_fault_t wp_page_shared(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> return VM_FAULT_WRITE;
> }
>
> +static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf);
> +
> /*
> * This routine handles present pages, when users try to write
> * to a shared page. It is done by copying the page to a new address
> @@ -2487,7 +2489,7 @@ static vm_fault_t wp_page_shared(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> * but allow concurrent faults), with pte both mapped and locked.
> * We return with mmap_sem still held, but pte unmapped and unlocked.
> */
> -static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> +static vm_fault_t do_userfaultfd_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> __releases(vmf->ptl)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> @@ -2497,6 +2499,14 @@ static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> return handle_userfault(vmf, VM_UFFD_WP);
> }
>
> + return do_wp_page(vmf);
> +}
> +
> +static vm_fault_t do_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> + __releases(vmf->ptl)
> +{
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> +
> vmf->page = vm_normal_page(vma, vmf->address, vmf->orig_pte);
> if (!vmf->page) {
> /*
> @@ -2869,7 +2879,7 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> }
>
> if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
> - ret |= do_wp_page(vmf);
> + ret |= do_userfaultfd_wp_page(vmf);
> if (ret & VM_FAULT_ERROR)
> ret &= VM_FAULT_ERROR;
> goto out;
> @@ -3831,7 +3841,7 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> goto unlock;
> if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
> if (!pte_write(entry))
> - return do_wp_page(vmf);
> + return do_userfaultfd_wp_page(vmf);
> entry = pte_mkdirty(entry);
> }
> entry = pte_mkyoung(entry);
>
> I would prefer the 1st approach since it not only contains fewer lines
> of changes because it does not touch callers, and also the naming in
> the 2nd approach can be a bit confusing (calling
> do_userfaultfd_wp_page in handle_pte_fault may let people think of an
> userfault-only path but actually it covers the general path). But if
> you really like the 2nd one I can use that too.
Maybe move the userfaultfd code to a small helper, call it first in
call site of do_wp_page() and do_wp_page() if it does not fire ie:
bool do_userfaultfd_wp(struct vm_fault *vmf, int ret)
{
if (handleuserfault) return true;
return false;
}
then
if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
if (do_userfaultfd_wp(vmf, tmp)) {
ret |= tmp;
} else
ret |= do_wp_page(vmf);
if (ret & VM_FAULT_ERROR)
ret &= VM_FAULT_ERROR;
goto out;
and:
if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
if (!pte_write(entry)) {
if (do_userfaultfd_wp(vmf, ret))
return ret;
else
return do_wp_page(vmf);
}
Cheers,
Jérôme
