On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 11:06:32PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> 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?
Good point.. Yes we definitely don't want the empty pte to be recognized as the
special pte.. I'll squash below into the same patch:
----8<----
diff --git a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
index 489fb375e66c..23ca449240d1 100644
--- a/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
+++ b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
@@ -177,7 +177,11 @@ static inline pte_t pte_swp_mkuffd_wp_special(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
static inline bool pte_swp_uffd_wp_special(pte_t pte)
{
+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP
return pte_same(pte, UFFD_WP_SWP_PTE_SPECIAL);
+#else
+ return false;
+#fi
}
#else /* CONFIG_USERFAULTFD */
----8<----
I'll see whether I can give some dry run without HAVE_ARCH_USERFAULTFD_WP but
with USERFAULTFD.
Thanks for spotting that!
--
Peter Xu
