>> I guess we could implement that on arm64 using our current vmemmap_populate
>> logic and an explicit memset.
Hi Will,
I will send out a new patch series with x86/arm64 versions of
kasan_map_populate(), so you could take a look if this is something
that is acceptable.
Thank you,
Pavel
>
> Ok, but I'm still missing why you think that is needed. What would be the
> second page table walker that needs implementing?
>
> I guess we could implement that on arm64 using our current vmemmap_populate
> logic and an explicit memset.
>
Hi Will,
What do you mean by explicit memset()? We ca
Hi Pavel,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:59:09PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > We have two table walks even with your patch series applied afaict: one in
> > our definition of vmemmap_populate (arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c) and this one
> > in the core code.
>
> I meant to say implementing two new page tab
Hi Will,
> We have two table walks even with your patch series applied afaict: one in
> our definition of vmemmap_populate (arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c) and this one
> in the core code.
I meant to say implementing two new page table walkers, not at runtime.
> My worry is that these are actually highly a
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 02:42:32PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> In addition to what Michal wrote:
>
> > As an interim step, why not introduce something like
> > vmemmap_alloc_block_flags and make the page-table walking opt-out for
> > architectures that don't want it? Then we can j
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:14:33PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-10-17 13:51:47, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > I can go back to that approach, if Michal OK with it. But, that would
> > mean that I would need to touch every single architecture that
> > implements vmemmap_populate(), and also pa
Hi Will,
In addition to what Michal wrote:
> As an interim step, why not introduce something like
> vmemmap_alloc_block_flags and make the page-table walking opt-out for
> architectures that don't want it? Then we can just pass __GFP_ZERO from
> our vmemmap_populate where necessary and other arch
Hi Pavel,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 01:51:47PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> I can go back to that approach, if Michal OK with it. But, that would
> mean that I would need to touch every single architecture that
> implements vmemmap_populate(), and also pass flags at least through
> these functions
On Mon 09-10-17 13:51:47, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> I can go back to that approach, if Michal OK with it. But, that would
> mean that I would need to touch every single architecture that
> implements vmemmap_populate(), and also pass flags at least through
> these functions on every arc
Hi Will,
I can go back to that approach, if Michal OK with it. But, that would
mean that I would need to touch every single architecture that
implements vmemmap_populate(), and also pass flags at least through
these functions on every architectures (some have more than one
decided by configs).:
v
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 03:48:46PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:17:11PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > During early boot, kasan uses vmemmap_populate() to establish its shadow
> > memory. But, that interface is intended for struct pages use.
> >
> > Because of the curr
Hi Mark,
I considered using a new *populate() function for shadow without using
vmemmap_populate(), but that makes things unnecessary complicated:
vmemmap_populate() has builtin:
1. large page support
2. device memory support
3. node locality support
4. several config based variants on diffe
Hi Pavel,
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 04:17:11PM -0400, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> During early boot, kasan uses vmemmap_populate() to establish its shadow
> memory. But, that interface is intended for struct pages use.
>
> Because of the current project, vmemmap won't be zeroed during allocation,
> but
13 matches
Mail list logo
