Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/64: Do not dereference non-present PGD entries

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 07:27:33AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > ... adding Kirill
> > 
> > On 8/7/20 1:40 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > > +		lvl = "p4d";
> > > +		p4d = p4d_alloc(&init_mm, pgd, addr);
> > > +		if (!p4d)
> > > +			goto failed;
> > >  
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * With 5-level paging the P4D level is not folded. So the PGDs
> > > +		 * are now populated and there is no need to walk down to the
> > > +		 * PUD level.
> > > +		 */
> > >  		if (pgtable_l5_enabled())
> > >  			continue;
> > 
> > It's early and I'm a coffee or two short of awake, but I had to stare at
> > the comment for a but to make sense of it.
> > 
> > It feels wrong, I think, because the 5-level code usually ends up doing
> > *more* allocations and in this case, it is _appearing_ to do fewer.
> > Would something like this make sense?
> 
> Unless I miss something, with 5 levels vmalloc mappings are shared at
> p4d level, so allocating a p4d page would be enough. With 4 levels,
> p4d_alloc() is a nop and pud is the first actually populated level below
> pgd.
> 
> > 		/*
> > 		 * The goal here is to allocate all possibly required
> > 		 * hardware page tables pointed to by the top hardware
> > 		 * level.
> > 		 *
> > 		 * On 4-level systems, the p4d layer is folded away and
> > 		 * the above code does no preallocation.  Below, go down
> > 		 * to the pud _software_ level to ensure the second
> > 		 * hardware level is allocated.
> > 		 */

Would be nice to integrate all these explanations into the comment itself?

Thanks,

	Ingo