Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm/gup: fix gup_fast with dynamic page table folding

[Gerald Schaefer]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:02:33 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:39:25AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> 
> > As Gerald mentioned, it is very difficult to explain in a clear way.
> > Hopefully, one could make sense ot of it.
> 
> I would say the page table API requires this invariant:
> 
>         pud = pud_offset(p4d, addr);
>         do {
> 		WARN_ON(pud != pud_offset(p4d, addr);
>                 next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
>         } while (pud++, addr = next, addr != end);
> 
> ie pud++ is supposed to be a shortcut for 
>   pud_offset(p4d, next)
> 

Hmm, IIUC, all architectures with static folding will simply return
the passed-in p4d pointer for pud_offset(p4d, addr), for 3-level
pagetables. There is no difference for s390. For gup_fast, that p4d
pointer is not really a pointer to a value in a pagetable, but
to some local copy of such a value, and not just for s390.

So, pud = p4d = pointer to copy, and increasing that pud pointer
cannot be the same as pud_offset(p4d, next). I do see your point
however, at last I think :-) My problem is that I do not see where
we would have an s390-specific issue here. Maybe my understanding
of how it works for others with static folding is wrong. That
would explain my difficulties in getting your point...

> While S390 does not follow this. Fixing addr_end brings it into
> alignment by preventing pud++ from happening.

Exactly, only that nobody seems to follow it, IIUC. Fixing it up
with pXd_addr_end was my impression of what we need to do, in order to
have it work the same way as for others.

> The only currently known side effect is that gup_fast crashes, but it
> sure is an unexpected thing.

Well, from my understanding it feels more unexpected that something
that is supposed to be a pointer to an entry in a page table, really is
just a pointer to some copy somewhere.