On 17.12.24 06:12, Alistair Popple wrote:
In preparation for using insert_page() for DAX, enhance
insert_page_into_pte_locked() to handle establishing writable
mappings. Recall that DAX returns VM_FAULT_NOPAGE after installing a
PTE which bypasses the typical set_pte_range() in finish_fault.
Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Changes since v2:
- New patch split out from "mm/memory: Add dax_insert_pfn"
---
mm/memory.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 06bb29e..cd82952 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -2126,19 +2126,47 @@ static int validate_page_before_insert(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
}
static int insert_page_into_pte_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pte_t *pte,
- unsigned long addr, struct page *page, pgprot_t prot)
+ unsigned long addr, struct page *page,
+ pgprot_t prot, bool mkwrite)
{
struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
+ pte_t entry = ptep_get(pte);
pte_t pteval;
- if (!pte_none(ptep_get(pte)))
- return -EBUSY;
+ if (!pte_none(entry)) {
+ if (!mkwrite)
+ return -EBUSY;
+
+ /*
+ * For read faults on private mappings the PFN passed in may not
+ * match the PFN we have mapped if the mapped PFN is a writeable
+ * COW page. In the mkwrite case we are creating a writable PTE
+ * for a shared mapping and we expect the PFNs to match. If they
+ * don't match, we are likely racing with block allocation and
+ * mapping invalidation so just skip the update.
+ */
Would it make sense to instead have here
/* See insert_pfn(). */
But ...
+ if (pte_pfn(entry) != page_to_pfn(page)) {
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(entry)));
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+ entry = maybe_mkwrite(entry, vma);
+ entry = pte_mkyoung(entry);
+ if (ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, pte, entry, 1))
+ update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, pte);
... I am not sure if we want the above at all. Someone inserted a page,
which is refcounted + mapcounted already.
Now you ignore that and do like the second insertion "worked" ?
No, that feels wrong, I suspect you will run into refcount+mapcount issues.
If there is already something, inserting must fail IMHO. If you want to
change something to upgrade write permissions, then a different
interface should be used.
+ return 0;
+ }
+
/* Ok, finally just insert the thing.. */
pteval = mk_pte(page, prot);
if (unlikely(is_zero_folio(folio))) {
pteval = pte_mkspecial(pteval);
} else {
folio_get(folio);
+ entry = mk_pte(page, prot);
+ if (mkwrite) {
+ entry = pte_mkyoung(entry);
> + entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma);> + }
inc_mm_counter(vma->vm_mm, mm_counter_file(folio));
folio_add_file_rmap_pte(folio, page, vma);
}
@@ -2147,7 +2175,7 @@ static int insert_page_into_pte_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pte_t *pte,
}
static int insert_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
- struct page *page, pgprot_t prot)
+ struct page *page, pgprot_t prot, bool mkwrite)
{
int retval;
pte_t *pte;
@@ -2160,7 +2188,8 @@ static int insert_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
pte = get_locked_pte(vma->vm_mm, addr, &ptl);
if (!pte)
goto out;
- retval = insert_page_into_pte_locked(vma, pte, addr, page, prot);
+ retval = insert_page_into_pte_locked(vma, pte, addr, page, prot,
+ mkwrite);
Alignment looks odd. Likely you can also just put it into a single line.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
