Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] x86/mm: avoid redundant checking if pgprot has no change

[Yang, Bin]

On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 23:57 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018, Bin Yang wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> > @@ -629,6 +629,22 @@ try_preserve_large_page(pte_t *kpte, unsigned long address,
> >  	new_prot = static_protections(req_prot, address, pfn);
> >  
> >  	/*
> > +	 * The static_protections() is used to check specific protection flags
> > +	 * for certain areas of memory. The old pgprot should be checked already
> > +	 * when it was applied before. If it's not, then this is a bug in some
> > +	 * other code and needs to be fixed there.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * If new pgprot is same as old pgprot, return directly without any
> > +	 * additional checking. The following static_protections() checking is
> > +	 * pointless if pgprot has no change. It can avoid the redundant
> > +	 * checking and optimize the performance of large page split checking.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (pgprot_val(new_prot) == pgprot_val(old_prot)) {
> 
> This is actually broken.
> 
> Assume that for the start address:
> 
>        req_prot != old_prot
> and
>        new_prot != req_prot
> and
>        new_prot == old_prot
> and
>        numpages > number_of_static_protected_pages(address)
> 
> Then the new check will return with split = NO and the pages after the
> static protected area won't be updated -> FAIL! IOW, you partially
> reintroduce the bug which was fixed by adding this check loop.
> 
> So this is a new optimization check which needs to be:
> 
> 	if (pgprot_val(req_prot) == pgprot_val(old_prot))
> 
> and that check wants to go above:
> 
>   	new_prot = static_protections(req_prot, address, pfn);

thanks for your suggestion. I will fix it.

> 
> Both under the assumption that old_prot is correct already.
> 
> Now the question is whether this assumption can be made. The current code
> does that already today in case of page splits because it copies the
> existing pgprot of the large page unmodified over to the new split PTE
> page. IOW, if the current mapping is incorrect it will stay that way if
> it's not part of the actually modified range.
> 
> I'm a bit worried about not having such a check, but if we add that then
> this should be done under a debug option for performance reasons.
> 
> The last patch which does the overlap check is equally broken:

Sorry that I did not understand the broken of last patch. It checks the old prot
to make sure whether current mapping is correct as below:

    WARN_ON_ONCE(needs_static_protections(old_prot, addr, psize, old_pfn));

If it is correct, the above assumption should be correct already. If not, we can split
the large page. It looks safe to split a wrong mapping large page. I prefer to change
above warning code as below:

    if (needs_static_protections(old_prot, addr, psize, old_pfn)) {
            WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
            goto out_unlock;
    }

> 
> +       /*
> +        * Ensure that the requested pgprot does not violate static protection
> +        * requirements.
> +        */
> +       new_prot = static_protections(req_prot, address,
> +                                     numpages << PAGE_SHIFT, pfn);
> 
> It expands new_prot to the whole range even if the protections only
> overlap. That should not happen in practice, but we have no checks for that
> at all.

Below code in patch #3 should cover this check. It will double check
new_prot in whole large page range.

    if (needs_static_protections(new_prot, addr, psize, old_pfn))
            goto out_unlock;

> 
> The whole thing needs way more thought in order not to (re)introduce subtle
> and hard to debug bugs.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>