Re: [PATCH v2] mm/pagewalk: split walk_page_range_novma() into kernel/user parts

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 05.06.25 21:19, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 4:21 PM Lorenzo Stoakes
> <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
>> The walk_page_range_novma() function is rather confusing - it supports two
>> modes, one used often, the other used only for debugging.
>>
>> The first mode is the common case of traversal of kernel page tables, which
>> is what nearly all callers use this for.
>>
>> Secondly it provides an unusual debugging interface that allows for the
>> traversal of page tables in a userland range of memory even for that memory
>> which is not described by a VMA.
>>
>> It is far from certain that such page tables should even exist, but perhaps
>> this is precisely why it is useful as a debugging mechanism.
>>
>> As a result, this is utilised by ptdump only. Historically, things were
>> reversed - ptdump was the only user, and other parts of the kernel evolved
>> to use the kernel page table walking here.
> 
> Just for the record, copy-pasting my comment on v1 that was
> accidentally sent off-list:
> ```
> Sort of a tangential comment: I wonder if it would make sense to give
> ptdump a different page table walker that uses roughly the same safety
> contract as gup_fast() - turn off IRQs and then walk the page tables
> locklessly. We'd need basically no locking and no special cases
> (regarding userspace mappings at least), at the cost of having to
> write the walker code such that we periodically restart the walk from
> scratch and not being able to inspect referenced pages. (That might
> also be nicer for debugging, since it wouldn't block on locks...)
> ```

I assume we don't have to dump more than pte values etc? So 
pte_special() and friends are not relevant to get it right.

GUP-fast depend on CONFIG_HAVE_GUP_FAST, not sure if that would be a 
concern for now.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb