[PATCH v4] arm64: Enable permission change on arm64 kernel block mappings

[Dev Jain]

On 24/07/25 5:28 pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:10:18PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> On 24/07/25 1:49 pm, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 08:44:41PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>> arm64 currently changes permissions on vmalloc objects locklessly, via
>>>> apply_to_page_range, whose limitation is to deny changing permissions for
>>>> block mappings. Therefore, we move away to use the generic pagewalk API,
>>>> thus paving the path for enabling huge mappings by default on kernel space
>>>> mappings, thus leading to more efficient TLB usage. However, the API
>>>> currently enforces the init_mm.mmap_lock to be held. To avoid the
>>>> unnecessary bottleneck of the mmap_lock for our usecase, this patch
>>>> extends this generic API to be used locklessly, so as to retain the
>>>> existing behaviour for changing permissions.
>>> Is it really a significant bottleneck if we take the lock? I suspect if
>>> we want to make this generic and allow splitting, we'll need a lock
>>> anyway (though maybe for shorter intervals if we only split the edges).
>> The splitting primitive may or may not require a lock, Ryan and Yang had
>> some discussion on the linear map block mapping thread. I am assuming
>> that since we didn't need a lock in the past, there is no need to take it now,
>> since we are only changing the pagetable walk API being used.
> I vaguely remember Ryan's and Yang's discussion. I'd have to revisit it.
> In the past we were not replacing block/table entries since there was no
> page table splitting. If we are to add some splitting, even at the
> edges, what would prevent some other caller of this API overlapping and
> attempting to do the same split? It's not just vmalloc ranges but the
> linear map as well that's touched by __change_memory_common().

Sorry I wasn't clear enough, what I meant to say was that the locking
will be the concernment of the splitting primitive - once that is done,
update_range_prot() does not need to take the lock.

>