From: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>
To: Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@arm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@sifive.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mm: opaque hardware page-table entry handles
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 20:25:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ajwuKpSnElvwIyhC@pedro-suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <74182e50-b54f-4d2d-a27f-3a59a538d6bc@arm.com>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 03:09:08PM +0100, Usama Anjum wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a direction-check with the wider community before spending time on the
> development. This picks up the idea that was raised and broadly agreed in the
> earlier thread (Ryan Roberts, Lorenzo Stoakes, David Hildenbrand) [1].
>
> The problem
> -----------
> Core MM code reaches page-table entries by raw pointer dereference (pte_t *,
> pmd_t *, *pud, ...) in places, implicitly assuming a single, uniform
> representation. Sprinkling getters wouldn't solve the problem entirely. The
> problem is one level up: the *pointer type* itself is overloaded. At each level
> there are really three distinct things:
>
> 1. a page-table entry value (pte_t, pmd_t, ...)
> 2. a pointer to an entry value, e.g. a pXX_t on the stack
> 3. a pointer to a live entry in the hardware page table
>
> Today (2) and (3) share the same type - pte_t *, pmd_t *, and so on. Nothing
> distinguishes a pointer into a live table from a pointer to a stack copy.
>
> A pointer to an on-stack entry value and a pointer to a live hardware entry have
> the same type, so the compiler cannot distinguish them. Passing the stack
> pointer to an arch helper that expects a hardware-entry pointer compiles fine,
> but is wrong - a bug class the type system makes invisible. It also blocks
> evolution: an arch helper may need to read beyond the addressed entry (e.g.
> adjacent or contiguous entries), which only makes sense for a real page-table
> pointer, not a stack copy.
>
> The idea
> --------
> Give (3) its own opaque type that cannot be dereferenced:
>
> /* opaque handle to a HW page-table entry; not dereferenceable */
> typedef struct {
> pte_t *ptr;
> } hw_ptep;
I don't love typedefs that hide pointers.
>
> With this:
>
> - a stack value can no longer masquerade as a hardware table entry,
> - a hardware handle can no longer be raw-dereferenced,
> - cases that genuinely operate on a value can be refactored to pass the value
> and let the caller, which knows whether it holds a handle or a stack copy,
> read it once.
Just a small passing comment: how about doing it differently? like
typedef struct {
pte_t *ptep;
} sw_ptep_t;
or something like that. Were I to guess, referring to a pte_t on the stack
is much rarer than all the pte_t references to actual page tables. But maybe
reality doesn't match up with my guess :)
>
> The overload becomes a compile-time type error instead of a silent runtime bug,
> and converting the tree forces every such site to be made explicit. This gives
> us a framework where the architecture can completely virtualize the pgtable if
> it likes; and the compiler can enforce that higher level code can't accidentally
> work around it.
>
> It is opt-in by architectures and incremental. The generic definition is
> just an alias, so arches that do not care build unchanged:
>
> typedef pte_t *hw_ptep;
>
> An arch flips to the strong struct type when it is ready, and only then does
> it get the stronger checking. This lets the conversion land gradually.
>
> Beyond fixing the latent bug class, this abstraction is an enabler for upcoming
> features that need tighter control over how page tables are accessed and
> manipulated.
>
> Getter flavours
> ---------------
> While converting, it is useful to have two accessor flavours at each level:
>
> - pXXp_get(hw_ptep) plain C dereference (compiler may optimize)
> - pXXp_get_once(hw_ptep) single-copy-atomic, not torn, elided or
> duplicated by the compiler
>
> Keeping them distinct simplifies the conversion and avoids re-introducing the
> class of lockless-read bugs seen on 32-bit.
>
> Example conversion
> ------------------
> Most of the conversion is mechanical.
>
> -static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> - pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte, unsigned int nr)
> +static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> + hw_ptep ptep, pte_t pte, unsigned int nr)
> {
> page_table_check_ptes_set(mm, addr, ptep, pte, nr);
> for (;;) {
> set_pte(ptep, pte);
> if (--nr == 0)
> break;
> - ptep++;
> + ptep = hw_pte_next(ptep);
> pte = pte_next_pfn(pte);
> }
> }
>
> The bulk of work is this kind of rote substitution. The genuine work is the
> handful of sites that turn out to be operating on a stack copy rather than a
> live entry - those are exactly the ones the new type forces us to surface and
> fix.
>
> Estimated churn:
> ----------------
> Half way through the prototyping converting only PTE and PMD levels:
> 77 files changed, +1801 / -1425
> ~57 files reference the new types
Right, the churn would be very unfortunate.
>
> So the line count will grow once PUD/P4D/PGD and the remaining call sites are
> converted; expect meaningfully more churn than the numbers above.
>
> Introduce the type as an alias, convert one helper family per patch, and flip
> an arch to the strong type last - with non-opted arches building unchanged at
> every step.
>
> Open questions
> --------------
> - Is the type-safety + future-feature enablement worth the churn?
> - Naming: hw_ptep/hw_pmdp vs something else?
> - Should all five levels be converted before merging anything, or is a staged
> PTE-and-PMD then landing others acceptable?
> - Do we want the two getter flavours (pXXp_get / pXXp_get_once) at every
> level?
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/a063f6c5-2785-4a9f-8079-25edb3e54cef@arm.com
>
> Thanks,
> Usama
>
--
Pedro
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-24 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-24 14:09 mm: opaque hardware page-table entry handles Usama Anjum
2026-06-24 15:52 ` Zi Yan
2026-06-24 19:25 ` Pedro Falcato [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=ajwuKpSnElvwIyhC@pedro-suse \
--to=pfalcato@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=samuel.holland@sifive.com \
--cc=usama.anjum@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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