On Friday, 28 May 2021 6:19:04 AM AEST Peter Xu wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/pgtable_uffd.h b/include/asm-generic/pgtable_uffd.h
> index 828966d4c281..95e9811ce9d1 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/pgtable_uffd.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/pgtable_uffd.h
> @@ -2,6 +2,9 @@
> #define _ASM_GENERIC_PGTABLE_UFFD_H
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP
> +
> +#define UFFD_WP_SWP_PTE_SPECIAL __pte(0)
> +
> static __always_inline int pte_uffd_wp(pte_t pte)
> {
> return 0;
> diff --git a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
> index 331d2ccf0bcc..93f932b53a71 100644
> --- a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
> +++ b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
> @@ -145,6 +145,17 @@ extern int userfaultfd_unmap_prep(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> extern void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm,
> struct list_head *uf);
>
> +static inline pte_t pte_swp_mkuffd_wp_special(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(vma_is_anonymous(vma));
> + return UFFD_WP_SWP_PTE_SPECIAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool pte_swp_uffd_wp_special(pte_t pte)
> +{
> + return pte_same(pte, UFFD_WP_SWP_PTE_SPECIAL);
> +}
> +
Sorry, only just noticed this but do we need to define a different version of
this helper that returns false for CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP=n to avoid
spurious matches with __pte(0) on architectures supporting userfaultfd but not
userfaultfd-wp?
> #else /* CONFIG_USERFAULTFD */
>
> /* mm helpers */
> @@ -234,6 +245,16 @@ static inline void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm,
> {
> }
>
> +static inline pte_t pte_swp_mkuffd_wp_special(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> +{
> + return __pte(0);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool pte_swp_uffd_wp_special(pte_t pte)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> #endif /* CONFIG_USERFAULTFD */
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_USERFAULTFD_K_H */
>
