Re: [PATCH 00/11] Always call constructor for kernel page tables

From: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	"Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org,
	linux-openrisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] Always call constructor for kernel page tables
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:14:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e79f9aa9-ce1b-4d42-8a61-aebaae1744fc@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <70349335-84ee-4bca-a3d6-d7cf3c05b92b@arm.com>

On 17/03/2025 16:30, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 17/03/2025 14:16, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> The complications in those special pgtable allocators beg the question:
>> does it really make sense to treat efi_mm and init_mm differently in
>> e.g. apply_to_pte_range()? Maybe what we really need is a way to tell if
>> an mm corresponds to user memory or not, and never use split locks for
>> non-user mm's. Feedback and suggestions welcome!
> The difference in treatment is whether or not the ptl is taken, right? So the
> real question is when calling apply_to_pte_range() for efi_mm, is there already
> a higher level serialization mechanism that prevents racy accesses? For init_mm,
> I think this is handled implicitly because there is no way for user space to
> cause apply_to_pte_range() for an arbitrary piece of kernel memory. Although I
> can't even see where apply_to_page_range() is called for efi_mm.

The commit I mentioned above, 61444cde9170 ("ARM: 8591/1: mm: use fully
constructed struct pages for EFI pgd allocations"), shows that
apply_to_page_range() is called from efi_set_mapping_permissions(), and
this indeed hasn't changed. It is itself called from efi_virtmap_init().
I would expect that no locking at all is necessary here, since the
mapping has just been created and surely isn't used yet. Now the
question is where exactly init_mm is special-cased in this manner. I can
see that walk_page_range() does something similar, there may be more
cases. And the other question is whether those functions are ever used
on special mm's, aside from efi_set_mapping_permissions().
> FWIW, contpte.c has mm_is_user() which is used by arm64.

Interesting! But not pretty, that's basically checking that the mm is
not &init_mm or &efi_mm... which wouldn't work for a generic
implementation. It feels like adding some attribute to mm_struct
wouldn't hurt. It looks like we've run out of MMF_* flags though :/

- Kevin