On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On 04/03/2018 09:45 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >> Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>> void cea_set_pte(void *cea_vaddr, phys_addr_t pa, pgprot_t flags)
> >>> {
> >>> unsigned long va = (unsigned long) cea_vaddr;
> >>> + pte_t pte = pfn_pte(pa >> PAGE_SHIFT, flags);
> >>>
> >>> - set_pte_vaddr(va, pfn_pte(pa >> PAGE_SHIFT, flags));
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * The cpu_entry_area is shared between the user and kernel
> >>> + * page tables. All of its ptes can safely be global.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PGE))
> >>> + pte = pte_set_flags(pte, _PAGE_GLOBAL);
> >>
> >> I think it would be safer to check that the PTE is indeed present before
> >> setting _PAGE_GLOBAL. For example, percpu_setup_debug_store() sets
> >> PAGE_NONE
> >> for non-present entries. In this case, since PAGE_NONE and PAGE_GLOBAL use
> >> the same bit, everything would be fine, but it might cause bugs one day.
> >
> > That's a reasonable safety thing to add, I think.
> >
> > But, looking at it, I am wondering why we did this in
> > percpu_setup_debug_store():
> >
> > for (; npages; npages--, cea += PAGE_SIZE)
> > cea_set_pte(cea, 0, PAGE_NONE);
> >
> > Did we really want that to be PAGE_NONE, or was it supposed to create a
> > PTE that returns true for pte_none()?
>
> I yield it to others to answer...
My bad. I should have used pgprot(0).
Thanks,
tglx
