On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 02:08:28PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-tip.html#changelog > > A good structure is to explain the context, the problem and the > solution in separate paragraphs and this order I'll try to follow, thanks. [...] > > And IMHO it's mostly fine before because mprotect() is broken with 1g > > anyway, and I guess nobody managed to populate any pud entry with PROT_NONE > > on dax 1g before, and that's what this whole series is trying to fix. > > Again your humble opinion matters, but technical facts and analysis > matter way more. All the rest comments in the reply were about "why it's a PUD leaf". So let me reply in one shot. Referring to pXd_leaf() documentation in linux/pgtable.h: /* * pXd_leaf() is the API to check whether a pgtable entry is a huge page * mapping. It should work globally across all archs, without any * dependency on CONFIG_* options. For architectures that do not support * huge mappings on specific levels, below fallbacks will be used. * * A leaf pgtable entry should always imply the following: * * - It is a "present" entry. IOW, before using this API, please check it * with pXd_present() first. NOTE: it may not always mean the "present * bit" is set. For example, PROT_NONE entries are always "present". * * - It should _never_ be a swap entry of any type. Above "present" check * should have guarded this, but let's be crystal clear on this. * * - It should contain a huge PFN, which points to a huge page larger than * PAGE_SIZE of the platform. The PFN format isn't important here. * * - It should cover all kinds of huge mappings (e.g., pXd_trans_huge(), * pXd_devmap(), or hugetlb mappings). */ It explicitly stated that PROT_NONE should be treated as a present entry, and also a leaf. The document is for pXd_leaf(), so it should cover puds too. In this specific case of the zapping path, it's only possible it's a DAX 1G thp. But pud_leaf() should work for hugetlb too, for example, when PROT_NONE applied on top of a 1G hugetlb with PSE set. Unfortunately, I wrote this document in 64078b3d57.. so that's also another way of saying "my humble opinion".. it's just nobody disagreed so far, and please shoot if you see any issue out of it. IOW, I don't think we must define pXd_leaf() like this - we used to define pXd_leaf() to cover migration entries at least on x86, for example. But per my own past mm experience, the current way is the right thing to do to make everything much easier and less error prone. Sorry, I can't get rid of "IMHO" here. Another example of "we can define pXd_leaf() in other ways" is I believe for PPC 8XX series it's possible to make special use of pmd_leaf() by allowing pmd_leaf() to return true even for two continuous pte pgtable covering 8MB memory. But that will be an extremely special use of pmd_leaf() even if it comes, maybe worth an update above when it happens, and it'll only be used by powerpc not any other arch. It won't happen if we want to drop 8MB support, though. So in short, I don't think there's a 100% correct "technical" answer of saying "how to define pxx_leaf()"; things just keep evolving, and "humble opinions" keeps coming with some good reasons. Hope that answers the question to some extent. Taking all things into account, I wonder whether below enriched commit message would get me closer to your ACK on this, trying to follow the rule you referenced on the order of how context/problem/solution should be ordered and addressed: When working on mprotect() on 1G dax entries, I hit an zap bad pud error when zapping a huge pud that is with PROT_NONE permission. Here the problem is x86's pud_leaf() requires both PRESENT and PSE bits set to report a pud entry as a leaf, but that doesn't look right, as it's not following the pXd_leaf() definition that we stick with so far, where PROT_NONE entries should be reported as leaves. To fix it, change x86's pud_leaf() implementation to only check against PSE bit to report a leaf, irrelevant of whether PRESENT bit is set. Thanks, -- Peter Xu
