From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: "Longpeng (Mike)" <longpeng2@huawei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
arei.gonglei@huawei.com, weidong.huang@huawei.com,
weifuqiang@huawei.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb: fix a addressing exception caused by huge_pte_offset()
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 15:46:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200321154644.bcbedca64f620d3cbe215231@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1b61f55a-d825-5721-2bfe-5e0efc9c9c2d@oracle.com>
On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:41:46 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:
> > Secondly, huge_pte_offset in mm/hugetlb.c is for ARCH_WANT_GENERAL_HUGETLB, many
> > architectures use it, can you make sure there is no issue on all the
> > architectures using it with all the version of gcc ?
> >
> > Thirdly, there are several places use READ_ONCE to access the page table in mm/*
> > (e.g. gup_pmd_range), they're also generical for all architectures, and they're
> > much more like unnecessary than here, so why there can use but not here? What's
> > more, you can read this commit 688272809.
>
> Apologies for the late reply.
>
> In commit 20a004e7 the message says that "Whilst there are some scenarios
> where this cannot happen ... the overhead of using READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE
> everywhere is minimal and makes the code an awful lot easier to reason about."
> Therefore, a decision was made to ALWAYS use READ_ONCE in the arm64 code
> whether or not it was absolutely necessary. Therefore, I do not think
> we can assume all the READ_ONCE additions made in 20a004e7 are necessary.
> Then the question remains, it it necessary in two statements above?
> I do not believe it is necessary. Why? In the statements,
> if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
> and
> if (!p4d_present(*p4d))
> the variables are only accessed and dereferenced once. I can not imagine
> any way in which the compiler could perform multiple accesses of the variable.
>
> I do believe the READ_ONCE in code accessing the pud and pmd is necessary.
> This is because the variables (pud_entry or pmd_entry) are accessed more than
> once. And, I could imagine some strange compiler optimization where it would
> dereference the pud or pmd pointer more than once. For this same reason
> (multiple accesses), I believe the READ_ONCE was added in commit 688272809.
>
> I am no expert in this area, so corrections/comments appreciated.
>
> BTW, I still think there may be races present in lookup_address_in_pgd().
> Multiple dereferences of a p4d, pud and pmd are done.
Based on Mike's observations I shall drop this patch. If we still
believe it is needed, please enhance the changelog, resend and let's
take another look.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-21 22:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-22 5:23 Qian Cai
2020-02-22 6:33 ` Longpeng (Mike)
2020-02-22 11:50 ` Qian Cai
2020-02-22 17:02 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-23 1:24 ` Longpeng (Mike)
2020-02-27 21:41 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-03-21 22:46 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-02-22 3:33 Longpeng(Mike)
2020-03-21 23:38 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-03-23 2:03 ` Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
2020-03-23 2:54 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-03-23 3:43 ` Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
2020-03-23 14:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-23 16:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-23 16:09 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-23 17:27 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-03-23 18:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-23 20:35 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-03-23 22:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-24 2:37 ` Longpeng (Mike, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)
2020-03-24 11:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-24 15:25 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-03-24 15:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-24 16:19 ` Mike Kravetz
2020-03-24 17:59 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-03-24 19:47 ` Mike Kravetz
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=20200321154644.bcbedca64f620d3cbe215231@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arei.gonglei@huawei.com \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longpeng2@huawei.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=weidong.huang@huawei.com \
--cc=weifuqiang@huawei.com \
--cc=willy@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