Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Honour passed pgprot in track_pfn_insert() and track_pfn_remap()

From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Mon Jan 25 2016 - 12:47:04 EST

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Matthew Wilcox
> <matthew.r.wilcox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> track_pfn_insert() overwrites the pgprot that is passed in with a value
>> based on the VMA's page_prot. This is a problem for people trying to
>> do clever things with the new vm_insert_pfn_prot() as it will simply
>> overwrite the passed protection flags. If we use the current value of
>> the pgprot as the base, then it will behave as people are expecting.
>> Also fix track_pfn_remap() in the same way.
> Well that's embarrassing. Presumably it worked for me because I only
> overrode the cacheability bits and lookup_memtype did the right thing.
> But shouldn't the PAT code change the memtype if vm_insert_pfn_prot
> requests it? Or are there no callers that actually need that? (HPET
> doesn't, because there's a plain old ioremapped mapping.)

Looking a bit further, track_pfn_remap does this, while
track_pfn_insert does not. I don't know why

I'm also a bit confused as to how any of this works. There doesn't
seem to be any reference counting of memtypes, so I don't understand
why, say, remapping the same range twice and then freeing them in FIFO
order doesn't break the memtype code. (There's VM_PAT, but that seems
likely to be extremely fragile.)