On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 15:51, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There is one more, unfortunately.
>
> Building xtensa:de212:kc705-nommu:nommu_kc705_defconfig ... failed
Heh. I didn't even realize that anybody would ever do
lock_mm_and_find_vma() code on a nommu platform.
With nommu, handle_mm_fault() will just BUG(), so it's kind of
pointless to do any of this at all, and I didn't expect anybody to
have this page faulting path that just causes that BUG() for any
faults.
But it turns out xtensa has a notion of protection faults even for
NOMMU configs:
config PFAULT
bool "Handle protection faults" if EXPERT && !MMU
default y
help
Handle protection faults. MMU configurations must enable it.
noMMU configurations may disable it if used memory map never
generates protection faults or faults are always fatal.
If unsure, say Y.
which is why it violated my expectations so badly.
I'm not sure if that protection fault handling really ever gets quite
this far (it certainly should *not* make it to the BUG() in
handle_mm_fault()), but I think the attached patch is likely the right
thing to do.
Can you check if it fixes that xtensa case? It looks
ObviouslyCorrect(tm) to me, but considering that I clearly missed this
case existing AT ALL, it might be best to double-check.
Linus
include/linux/mm.h | 5 +++--
mm/nommu.c | 11 +++++++++++
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index 39aa409e84d5..4f2c33c273eb 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -2323,6 +2323,9 @@ void pagecache_isize_extended(struct inode *inode, loff_t from, loff_t to);
void truncate_pagecache_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t end);
int generic_error_remove_page(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page);
+struct vm_area_struct *lock_mm_and_find_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
+ unsigned long address, struct pt_regs *regs);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
extern vm_fault_t handle_mm_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long address, unsigned int flags,
@@ -2334,8 +2337,6 @@ void unmap_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
pgoff_t start, pgoff_t nr, bool even_cows);
void unmap_mapping_range(struct address_space *mapping,
loff_t const holebegin, loff_t const holelen, int even_cows);
-struct vm_area_struct *lock_mm_and_find_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
- unsigned long address, struct pt_regs *regs);
#else
static inline vm_fault_t handle_mm_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long address, unsigned int flags,
diff --git a/mm/nommu.c b/mm/nommu.c
index 37d0b03143f1..fdc392735ec6 100644
--- a/mm/nommu.c
+++ b/mm/nommu.c
@@ -630,6 +630,17 @@ struct vm_area_struct *find_vma(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(find_vma);
+/*
+ * At least xtensa ends up having protection faults even with no
+ * MMU.. No stack expansion, at least.
+ */
+struct vm_area_struct *lock_mm_and_find_vma(struct mm_struct *mm,
+ unsigned long addr, struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ mmap_read_lock(mm);
+ return vma_lookup(mm, addr);
+}
+
/*
* expand a stack to a given address
* - not supported under NOMMU conditions
