On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:02:27AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> ...
> > -static void sgx_sanitize_section(struct sgx_epc_section *section)
> > +static void sgx_sanitize_section(struct list_head *laundry)
> >  {
> 
> Does this need a better function name now that it's not literally
> dealing with sections at *all*?
> 
>       sgx_sanitize_pages()
> 
> perhaps.

Makes sense to me.

> >     struct sgx_epc_page *page;
> >     LIST_HEAD(dirty);
> >     int ret;
> >  
> >     /* init_laundry_list is thread-local, no need for a lock: */
> > -   while (!list_empty(&section->init_laundry_list)) {
> > +   while (!list_empty(laundry)) {
> >             if (kthread_should_stop())
> >                     return;
> >  
> > -           /* needed for access to ->page_list: */
> > -           spin_lock(&section->lock);
> > -
> > -           page = list_first_entry(&section->init_laundry_list,
> > -                                   struct sgx_epc_page, list);
> > +           page = list_first_entry(laundry, struct sgx_epc_page, list);
> >  
> >             ret = __eremove(sgx_get_epc_virt_addr(page));
> > -           if (!ret)
> > -                   list_move(&page->list, &section->page_list);
> > -           else
> > +           if (!ret) {
> > +                   /* The page is clean - move to the free list. */
> > +                   list_del(&page->list);
> > +                   sgx_free_epc_page(page);
> > +           } else {
> > +                   /* The page is not yet clean - move to the dirty list. 
> > */
> >                     list_move_tail(&page->list, &dirty);
> > -
> > -           spin_unlock(&section->lock);
> > +           }
> >  
> >             cond_resched();
> >     }
> >  
> > -   list_splice(&dirty, &section->init_laundry_list);
> > +   list_splice(&dirty, laundry);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static bool sgx_reclaimer_age(struct sgx_epc_page *epc_page)
> > @@ -400,6 +398,7 @@ static bool sgx_should_reclaim(unsigned long watermark)
> >  
> >  static int ksgxd(void *p)
> >  {
> > +   struct list_head *laundry = p;
> >     int i;
> >  
> >     set_freezable();
> > @@ -408,16 +407,13 @@ static int ksgxd(void *p)
> >      * Sanitize pages in order to recover from kexec(). The 2nd pass is
> >      * required for SECS pages, whose child pages blocked EREMOVE.
> >      */
> > -   for (i = 0; i < sgx_nr_epc_sections; i++)
> > -           sgx_sanitize_section(&sgx_epc_sections[i]);
> > +   sgx_sanitize_section(laundry);
> > +   sgx_sanitize_section(laundry);
> 
> Did you intend to call this twice?

Yes, see the inline comment above.

> > -   for (i = 0; i < sgx_nr_epc_sections; i++) {
> > -           sgx_sanitize_section(&sgx_epc_sections[i]);
> > +   if (!list_empty(laundry))
> > +           WARN(1, "EPC section %d has unsanitized pages.\n", i);
> >  
> > -           /* Should never happen. */
> > -           if (!list_empty(&sgx_epc_sections[i].init_laundry_list))
> > -                   WARN(1, "EPC section %d has unsanitized pages.\n", i);
> > -   }
> > +   kfree(laundry);
> 
> This is a bit unfortunate.  'laundry' is allocated up in another thread
> and the lifetime isn't obvious.  It's just 32 bytes, but this is just
> asking to be leaked.
> >     while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> >             if (try_to_freeze())
> > @@ -436,11 +432,11 @@ static int ksgxd(void *p)
> >     return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static bool __init sgx_page_reclaimer_init(void)
> > +static bool __init sgx_page_reclaimer_init(struct list_head *laundry)
> >  {
> >     struct task_struct *tsk;
> >  
> > -   tsk = kthread_run(ksgxd, NULL, "ksgxd");
> > +   tsk = kthread_run(ksgxd, laundry, "ksgxd");
> >     if (IS_ERR(tsk))
> >             return false;
> >  
> > @@ -614,7 +610,8 @@ void sgx_free_epc_page(struct sgx_epc_page *page)
> >  
> >  static bool __init sgx_setup_epc_section(u64 phys_addr, u64 size,
> >                                      unsigned long index,
> > -                                    struct sgx_epc_section *section)
> > +                                    struct sgx_epc_section *section,
> > +                                    struct list_head *laundry)
> >  {
> 
> I think this at least need a comment somewhere about what this function
> is doing with 'laundry'.

Ok.

> >     unsigned long nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >     unsigned long i;
> > @@ -632,13 +629,12 @@ static bool __init sgx_setup_epc_section(u64 
> > phys_addr, u64 size,
> >     section->phys_addr = phys_addr;
> >     spin_lock_init(&section->lock);
> >     INIT_LIST_HEAD(&section->page_list);
> > -   INIT_LIST_HEAD(&section->init_laundry_list);
> >  
> >     for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> >             section->pages[i].section = index;
> >             section->pages[i].flags = 0;
> >             section->pages[i].owner = NULL;
> > -           list_add_tail(&section->pages[i].list, 
> > &section->init_laundry_list);
> > +           list_add_tail(&section->pages[i].list, laundry);
> >     }
> >  
> >     section->free_cnt = nr_pages;
> > @@ -656,7 +652,7 @@ static inline u64 __init sgx_calc_section_metric(u64 
> > low, u64 high)
> >            ((high & GENMASK_ULL(19, 0)) << 32);
> >  }
> >  
> > -static bool __init sgx_page_cache_init(void)
> > +static bool __init sgx_page_cache_init(struct list_head *laundry)
> >  {
> >     u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx, type;
> >     u64 pa, size;
> > @@ -679,7 +675,7 @@ static bool __init sgx_page_cache_init(void)
> >  
> >             pr_info("EPC section 0x%llx-0x%llx\n", pa, pa + size - 1);
> >  
> > -           if (!sgx_setup_epc_section(pa, size, i, &sgx_epc_sections[i])) {
> > +           if (!sgx_setup_epc_section(pa, size, i, &sgx_epc_sections[i], 
> > laundry)) {
> >                     pr_err("No free memory for an EPC section\n");
> >                     break;
> >             }
> 
> This is a great place for a comment about what is coming back on 'laundry'.
> 
> > @@ -697,18 +693,25 @@ static bool __init sgx_page_cache_init(void)
> >  
> >  static int __init sgx_init(void)
> >  {
> > +   struct list_head *laundry;
> >     int ret;
> >     int i;
> >  
> >     if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SGX))
> >             return -ENODEV;
> >  
> > -   if (!sgx_page_cache_init()) {
> > +   laundry = kzalloc(sizeof(*laundry), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +   if (!laundry)
> > +           return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +   INIT_LIST_HEAD(laundry);
> > +
> > +   if (!sgx_page_cache_init(laundry)) {
> >             ret = -ENOMEM;
> >             goto err_page_cache;
> >     }
> >  
> > -   if (!sgx_page_reclaimer_init()) {
> > +   if (!sgx_page_reclaimer_init(laundry)) {
> >             ret = -ENOMEM;
> >             goto err_page_cache;
> >     }
> 
> I really don't like this being dynamically allocated, especially since
> it's freed in another task in a non-obvious place.
> 
> Wouldn't this all just be a lot simpler if we had a global list_head?
> That will eat a whopping 16 bytes of space.

Yeah, why not. It's just then one global instead of per-struct field, which
is quite ugly.

/Jarkko

Reply via email to