[PATCH v31 04/12] arm64: mm: allow for unmapping part of kernel mapping

Mark Rutland
2017-02-02T14:35:35Z

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:01:03PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 11:44:38AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:21:32PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:03:54PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:46:23PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > > > A new function, remove_pgd_mapping(), is added.
> > > > > It allows us to unmap a specific portion of kernel mapping later as far as
> > > > > the mapping is made using create_pgd_mapping() and unless we try to free
> > > > > a sub-set of memory range within a section mapping.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not keen on adding more page table modification code. It was painful
> > > > enough to ensure that those worked in all configurations.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't we reuse create_pgd_mapping()? If we pass page_mappings_only,
> > > > and use an invalid prot (i.e. 0), what is the problem?
> > >
> > > As I did in v30?
> > > (though my implementation in v30 should be improved.)
> >
> > Something like that. I wasn't entirely sure why we needed to change
> > those functions so much, so I'm clearly missing something there. I'll go
> > have another look.
>
> I would be much easier if you see my new code.

Sure. FWIW, I took a look, and I understand why those changes were
necessary.

> > > If we don't need to free unused page tables, that would make things
> > > much simple. There are still some minor problems on the merge, but
> > > we can sort it out.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow what you mean by 'on merge' here. Could you
> > elaborate?
>
> What I had in mind is some changes needed to handle "__prot(0)" properly
> in alloc_init_pxx(). For example, p[mu]d_set_huge() doesn't make
> a "zeroed" entry.

I think that if we only allow ourselves to make PTEs invalid, we don't
have to handle that case. If we use page_mappings_only, we should only
check pgattr_change_is_safe() for the pte level, and the {pmd,pud,pgd}
entries shouldn't change.

Is the below sufficient to allow that, or have I missed something?

Thanks,
Mark.

---->8----
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
index 17243e4..05bf7bf 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
@@ -105,6 +105,22 @@ static bool pgattr_change_is_safe(u64 old, u64 new)
return old == 0 || new == 0 || ((old ^ new) & ~mask) == 0;
}

+static bool pte_change_is_valid(pte old, pte new)
+{
+ /*
+ * So long as we subsequently perform TLB invalidation, it is safe to
+ * change a PTE to an invalid, but non-zero value. We only allow this
+ * for PTEs since there's no complicated allocation/free issues to deal
+ * with.
+ *
+ * Otherwise, the usual attribute change rules apply.
+ */
+ if (!pte_valid(old) || !pte_valid(new))
+ return true;
+
+ return pgattr_change_is_safe(pte_val(old), pte_val(new));
+}
+
static void alloc_init_pte(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
unsigned long end, unsigned long pfn,
pgprot_t prot,
@@ -143,11 +159,7 @@ static void alloc_init_pte(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
set_pte(pte, pfn_pte(pfn, __prot));
pfn++;

- /*
- * After the PTE entry has been populated once, we
- * only allow updates to the permission attributes.
- */
- BUG_ON(!pgattr_change_is_safe(pte_val(old_pte), pte_val(*pte)));
+ BUG_ON(!pte_change_is_valid(old_pte, pte));

} while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);