[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the kvms390 tree
> Yes. Changes to mm/gup.c really should normally go through linux-mm and 
> Andrew's tree, if at all possible. This would have been caught, and figured out
> on linux-mm, had that been done--instead of leaving the linux-next maintainer
> trying to guess at how to resolve the conflict.
> +Cc David Hildenbrand, who I see looked at the kvms390 proposed patch a bit.
> Maybe he has some opinions, especially about my questions below.

I'll leave figuring out the details to Christian/Claudio (-EBUSY) :)

> The fix-up below may (or may not) need some changes:
> diff --cc mm/gup.c
> index 354bcfbd844b,f589299b0d4a..000000000000
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@@ -269,18 -470,11 +468,19 @@@ retry
> goto retry;
> }
> + /* try_grab_page() does nothing unless FOLL_GET or FOLL_PIN is set. */
> + if (unlikely(!try_grab_page(page, flags))) {
> + page = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + goto out;
> + }
> + if (flags & FOLL_GET) {
> If I'm reading the diff correctly, I believe that line should *maybe* be changed to:
> if (flags & (FOLL_GET | FOLL_PIN)) {
> ...because each of those flags has a similar effect: pinned pages for DMA or RDMA
> use. So either flag will require a call to arch_make_page_accessible()...except that
> I'm not sure that's what you want. Would the absence of a call to
> arch_make_page_accessible() cause things like pin_user_pages() to not work correctly?
> Seems like it would, to me.

Yes, it's required. From the commit message "enable paging, file backing
etc, it is also necessary to protect the host against a malicious user
space. For example a bad QEMU could simply start direct I/O on such
protected memory.". So we really want to convert the page from
unencrypted/inaccessible to encrypted/accessible at this point (iow,
make it definitely accessible, and make sure it stays accessible).

> (I'm pretty unhappy that we have to ask this at the linux-next level.)

Yeah, I *think* this fell through the cracks (on linux-mm, but also in
Andrew's inbox) because the series has a big fat "KVM: s390:" as prefix.
Christian decided to pull it in to give it some churn yesterday (I think
he originally wanted to have this patch and the other KVM protvirt
patches in 5.7 [2] ... but not sure what will happen due to this conflict).

At least now this patch has attention ... although it would have been
better if linux-next admins wouldn't have to mess with this :)



David / dhildenb

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-27 10:23    [W:0.075 / U:4.908 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site