[PATCH V2] arm64/mm: Intercept pfn changes in set_pte_at()

[Muchun Song]

> On Feb 7, 2023, at 22:31, Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 11:28:12AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 3, 2023, at 18:10, Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 10:40:18AM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 2, 2023, at 18:45, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:51:39PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 2023, at 20:20, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bah, sorry! Catalin reckons it may have been him talking about the vmemmap.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Indeed. The discussion with Anshuman started from this thread:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221025014215.3466904-1-mawupeng1@huawei.com/
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We already trip over the existing checks even without Anshuman's patch,
>>>>>>> though only by chance. We are not setting the software PTE_DIRTY on the
>>>>>>> new pte (we don't bother with this bit for kernel mappings).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Given that the vmemmap ptes are still live when such change happens and
>>>>>>> no-one came with a solution to the break-before-make problem, I propose
>>>>>>> we revert the arm64 part of commit 47010c040dec ("mm: hugetlb_vmemmap:
>>>>>>> cleanup CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE_FREE_VMEMMAP*"). We just need this hunk:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>>>>> index 27b2592698b0..5263454a5794 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>>>>>> @@ -100,7 +100,6 @@ config ARM64
>>>>>>> select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_TOPDOWN_MMAP_LAYOUT
>>>>>>> select ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS
>>>>>>> select ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE if ARM64_4K_PAGES || (ARM64_16K_PAGES && !ARM64_VA_BITS_36)
>>>>>>> - select ARCH_WANT_HUGETLB_PAGE_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maybe it is a little overkill for HVO as it can significantly minimize the
>>>>>> overhead of vmemmap on ARM64 servers for some workloads (like qemu, DPDK).
>>>>>> So I don't think disabling it is a good approach. Indeed, HVO broke BBM,
>>>>>> but the waring does not affect anything since the tail vmemmap pages are
>>>>>> supposed to be read-only. So, I suggest skipping warnings if it is the
>>>>>> vmemmap address in set_pte_at(). What do you think of?
>>>>> 
>>>>> IIUC, vmemmap_remap_pte() not only makes the pte read-only but also
>>>>> changes the output address. Architecturally, this needs a BBM sequence.
>>>>> We can avoid going through an invalid pte if we first make the pte
>>>>> read-only, TLBI but keeping the same pfn, followed by a change of the
>>>>> pfn while keeping the pte readonly. This also assumes that the content
>>>>> of the page pointed at by the pte is the same at both old and new pfn.
>>>> 
>>>> Right. I think using BBM is to avoid possibly creating multiple TLB entries
>>>> for the same address for a extremely short period. But accessing either the
>>>> old page or the new page is fine in this case. Is it acceptable for this
>>>> special case without using BBM?
>>> 
>>> Sadly, the architecture allows the CPU to conjure up a mapping based on a
>>> combination of the old and the new descriptor (a process known as
>>> "amalgamation") so we _really_ need the BBM sequence.
>> 
>> I am not familiar with ARM64, what's the user-visible effect if this
>> "amalgamation" occurs?
> 
> The user-visible effects would probably be data corruption and instability,
> since the amalgamated TLB entry could result in a bogus physical address and
> bogus permissions.

You mean the output address of amalgamated TLB entry is neither the old
address (before updated) nor the new address (after updated)? So it is
a bogus physical address? Is there any specifications to describe the
rules of how to create a amalgamated TLB entry? Thanks.

Muchun

> 
> Will