Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/ttm: Fix vm page protection handling

[Thomas HellstrÃm (VMware)]

On 12/4/19 3:35 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 04-12-19 15:16:09, Thomas HellstrÃm (VMware) wrote:
> > On 12/4/19 2:52 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 03-12-19 11:48:53, Thomas HellstrÃm (VMware) wrote:
> > > > From: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > TTM graphics buffer objects may, transparently to user-space,  move
> > > > between IO and system memory. When that happens, all PTEs pointing to the
> > > > old location are zapped before the move and then faulted in again if
> > > > needed. When that happens, the page protection caching mode- and
> > > > encryption bits may change and be different from those of
> > > > struct vm_area_struct::vm_page_prot.
> > > >
> > > > We were using an ugly hack to set the page protection correctly.
> > > > Fix that and instead use vmf_insert_mixed_prot() and / or
> > > > vmf_insert_pfn_prot().
> > > > Also get the default page protection from
> > > > struct vm_area_struct::vm_page_prot rather than using vm_get_page_prot().
> > > > This way we catch modifications done by the vm system for drivers that
> > > > want write-notification.
> > > So essentially this should have any new side effect on functionality it
> > > is just making a hacky/ugly code less so?
> > Functionality is unchanged. The use of a on-stack vma copy was severely
> > frowned upon in an earlier thread, which also points to another similar
> > example using vmf_insert_pfn_prot().
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190905103541.4161-2-thomas_os@xxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > > In other words what are the
> > > consequences of having page protection inconsistent from vma's?
> > During the years, it looks like the caching- and encryption flags of
> > vma::vm_page_prot have been largely removed from usage. From what I can
> > tell, there are no more places left that can affect TTM. We discussed
> > __split_huge_pmd_locked() towards the end of that thread, but that doesn't
> > affect TTM even with huge page-table entries.
> Please state all those details/assumptions you are operating on in the
> changelog.

Thanks. I'll update the patchset and add that.

/Thomas