From: steve.capper@linaro.org (Steve Capper)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V4 2/2] arm: mm: Switch back to L_PTE_WRITE
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:07:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140623150714.GA4323@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140620181748.GW32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 07:17:48PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 03:32:39PM +0100, Steve Capper wrote:
> > For LPAE, we have the following means for encoding writable or dirty
> > ptes:
> > L_PTE_DIRTY L_PTE_RDONLY
> > !pte_dirty && !pte_write 0 1
> > !pte_dirty && pte_write 0 1
> > pte_dirty && !pte_write 1 1
> > pte_dirty && pte_write 1 0
> >
> > So we can't distinguish between writable clean ptes and read only
> > ptes. This can cause problems with ptes being incorrectly flagged as
> > read only when they are writable but not dirty.
> >
> > This patch re-introduces the L_PTE_WRITE bit for both short descriptors
> > and long descriptors, by reverting
> > 36bb94b ARM: pgtable: provide RDONLY page table bit rather than WRITE bit
>
> Why are we still going about this in this over complicated manner?
> I'm not happy with this. I thought after fixing the problem with
> using bits above bit 32 that we could drop this silly conversion
> which makes the code harder to read.
>
> Right, let's get down to the detail. LPAE has it's existing bit
> which tells it that the mapping is read only. This is bit 7, which
> is the AP[2] bit.
>
> At present, AP[2] is mapped to L_PTE_RDONLY. When a PTE is set, the
> 3-level page table code in proc-v7-3level.S checks the L_PTE_DIRTY
> bit, and if that is clear, it sets L_PTE_RDONLY. *This* is the
> problem you're trying to solve.
>
> You are solving that by adding L_PTE_WRITE as bit 58 on LPAE, and
> then translating bit 58 _and_ the L_PTE_DIRTY state down to a
> read-only status for the hardware in AP[2], and rolling the change
> to make L_PTE_WRITE apply everywhere.
>
> Now, in patch 1, we solve the problem that using high bits in the
> PTE result in the return value being down-cast to zero. So, with
> patch 1 in place, we can use *any* bit in the PTE to correspond
> with any of the L_PTE_* flags. Remember this very important point:
> L_PTE_* flags are the *Linux* representation of the page table state,
> which may not necessarily be the state of the hardware (it isn't on
> 2-level systems - there's a translation that this stuff goes through.)
>
> So, what I say is why not, for the troublesome 3-level case:
>
> - Assign bit 58 for L_PTE_RDONLY
> - Convert the state of bit 58 and L_PTE_DIRTY to the AP[2] bit:
>
> ubfx ip, rh, #(58 - 32) @ L_PTE_RDONLY
> bfi rl, ip, #7, #1 @ PTE_AP2
> tst rh, #1 << (55 - 32) @ L_PTE_DIRTY
> orreq rl, #PTE_AP2
>
> This means we keep the read-only terminology, which is much more
> understandable when reading the assembly code than what we had when
> we used the write terminology.
Hi Russell,
Thanks for the advice, yes segregating L_PTE_RDONLY from PTE_AP2 allows
for a much smaller patch that leaves 2-level alone.
I am running a barrage of tests on a new series now that follows this
logic and will post a new revision soon.
Cheers,
--
Steve
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-23 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-16 14:32 [PATCH V4 0/2] PTE fixes for ARM LPAE Steve Capper
2014-06-16 14:32 ` [PATCH V4 1/2] arm: mm: Introduce {pte, pmd}_isset and {pte, pmd}_isclear Steve Capper
2014-06-20 9:12 ` [PATCH V4 1/2] arm: mm: Introduce {pte,pmd}_isset and {pte,pmd}_isclear Will Deacon
2014-06-20 10:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-06-16 14:32 ` [PATCH V4 2/2] arm: mm: Switch back to L_PTE_WRITE Steve Capper
2014-06-20 9:21 ` Will Deacon
2014-06-20 13:23 ` Steve Capper
2014-06-20 18:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-06-23 11:17 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-06-23 15:07 ` Steve Capper [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140623150714.GA4323@linaro.org \
--to=steve.capper@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).