On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 at 10:12, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> - walk_page_vma(vma, &subpage_walk_ops, NULL);
> + walk_page_vma(vma, &subpage_walk_ops, true, NULL);
Rather than add a new argument to the walk_page_*() functions, I
really think you should just add the locking rule to the 'const struct
mm_walk_ops' structure.
The locking rule goes along with the rules for what you are actually
doing, after all. Plus it would actually make it all much more legible
when it's not just some random "true/false" argument, but a an actual
.write_lock = 1
in the ops definition.
Yes, yes, that might mean that some ops might need duplicating in case
you really have a walk that sometimes takes the lock, and sometimes
doesn't, but that is odd to begin with.
The only such case I found from a quick look was the very strange
queue_pages_range() case. Is it really true that do_mbind() needs the
write-lock, but do_migrate_pages() does not?
And if they really are that different maybe they should have different walk_ops?
Maybe there were other cases that I didn't notice.
> error = walk_page_range(current->mm, start, end,
> - &prot_none_walk_ops, &new_pgprot);
> + &prot_none_walk_ops, true, &new_pgprot);
This looks odd. You're adding vma locking to a place that didn't do it before.
Yes, the mmap semaphore is held for writing, but this particular walk
doesn't need it as far as I can tell.
In fact, this feels like that walker should maybe *verify* that it's
held for writing, but not try to write it again?
Maybe the "lock_vma" flag should be a tri-state:
- lock for reading (no-op per vma), verify that the mmap sem is held
for reading
- lock for reading (no-op per vma), but with mmap sem held for
writing (this kind of "check before doing changes" walker)
- lock for writing (with mmap sem obviously needs to be held for writing)
> mmap_assert_locked(walk.mm);
> + if (lock_vma)
> + vma_start_write(vma);
So I think this should also be tightened up, and something like
switch (ops->locking) {
case WRLOCK:
vma_start_write(vma);
fallthrough;
case WRLOCK_VERIFY:
mmap_assert_write_locked(mm);
break;
case RDLOCK:
mmap_assert_locked(walk.mm);
}
because we shouldn't have a 'vma_start_write()' without holding the
mmap sem for *writing*, and the above would also allow that
mprotect_fixup() "walk to see if we can merge, verify that it was
already locked" thing.
Hmm?
NOTE! The above names are just completely made up. I dcon't think it
should actually be some "WRLOCK" enum. There are probably much better
names. Take the above as a "maybe something kind of in this direction"
rather than "do it exactly like this".
Linus
