|
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu8KbcJEfpjRMpaQHcsDo0ziv-2xmWowE9Syn_8pOX0WTw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:15:13 +0100 From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Stuart Yoder <stuart.yoder@...escale.com>, Sharma Bhupesh <bhupesh.sharma@...escale.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/21] arm64: decouple early fixmap init from linear mapping On 11 January 2016 at 17:09, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 02:18:57PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> Since the early fixmap page tables are populated using pages that are >> part of the static footprint of the kernel, they are covered by the >> initial kernel mapping, and we can refer to them without using __va/__pa >> translations, which are tied to the linear mapping. >> >> Since the fixmap page tables are disjoint from the kernel mapping up >> to the top level pgd entry, we can refer to bm_pte[] directly, and there >> is no need to walk the page tables and perform __pa()/__va() translations >> at each step. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 32 ++++++-------------- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> index 7711554a94f4..75b5f0dc3bdc 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >> @@ -570,38 +570,24 @@ void vmemmap_free(unsigned long start, unsigned long end) >> #endif /* CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP */ >> >> static pte_t bm_pte[PTRS_PER_PTE] __page_aligned_bss; >> -#if CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2 >> static pmd_t bm_pmd[PTRS_PER_PMD] __page_aligned_bss; >> -#endif >> -#if CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3 >> static pud_t bm_pud[PTRS_PER_PUD] __page_aligned_bss; >> -#endif >> >> static inline pud_t * fixmap_pud(unsigned long addr) >> { >> - pgd_t *pgd = pgd_offset_k(addr); >> - >> - BUG_ON(pgd_none(*pgd) || pgd_bad(*pgd)); >> - >> - return pud_offset(pgd, addr); >> + return (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 3) ? &bm_pud[pud_index(addr)] >> + : (pud_t *)pgd_offset_k(addr); > > If we move patch 6 earlier, we could use pud_offset_kimg here, and avoid > the cast, at the cost of passing the pgd into fixmap_pud. > > Similarly for fixmap_pmd. > Is that necessarily an improvement? I know it hides the cast, but I think having an explicit pgd_t* to pud_t* cast that so obviously applies to CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS < 4 only is fine as well. >> } >> >> -static inline pmd_t * fixmap_pmd(unsigned long addr) >> +static inline pte_t * fixmap_pmd(unsigned long addr) >> { >> - pud_t *pud = fixmap_pud(addr); >> - >> - BUG_ON(pud_none(*pud) || pud_bad(*pud)); >> - >> - return pmd_offset(pud, addr); >> + return (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2) ? &bm_pmd[pmd_index(addr)] >> + : (pmd_t *)pgd_offset_k(addr); >> } > > I assume the return type change was unintentional? > Yes. Thanks for spotting that. > With STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS: > > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c: In function 'fixmap_pmd': > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:604:9: warning: return from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] > return (CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2) ? &bm_pmd[pmd_index(addr)] > ^ > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c: In function 'early_fixmap_init': > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:635:6: warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types] > pmd = fixmap_pmd(addr); > ^ > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:645:11: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast > if ((pmd != fixmap_pmd(fix_to_virt(FIX_BTMAP_BEGIN))) > ^ > arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:646:14: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast > || pmd != fixmap_pmd(fix_to_virt(FIX_BTMAP_END))) { > ^ > > Side note: is there any reason we can't/shouldn't make > STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS a common config option? Or simply have it on by > default for arm64? > I wouldn't mind at all. > Having built with and without typechecks I see that it doesn't bloat the > kernel Image size, though the binary isn't quite identical: > > [mark@...erpostej:~/src/linux]% ls -al *.*checks > -rwxrwxr-x 1 mark mark 9288192 Jan 11 15:40 Image.checks > -rwxrwxr-x 1 mark mark 9288192 Jan 11 15:36 Image.nochecks > -rwxrwxr-x 1 mark mark 106782024 Jan 11 15:40 vmlinux.checks > -rwxrwxr-x 1 mark mark 106688928 Jan 11 15:35 vmlinux.nochecks > > Things didn't quite line up between the two images, though I'm not sure > what the underlying difference was. > > Thanks, > Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.