lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:40:01 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> Cc: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, general@...ts.openfabrics.org, Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>, Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, daniel.blueman@...drics.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v7 On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 03:05:30PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Still think that the lock here is not of too much use and can be easily > replaced by mmap_sem. I can use the mmap_sem. > > +#define mmu_notifier(function, mm, args...) \ > > + do { \ > > + struct mmu_notifier *__mn; \ > > + struct hlist_node *__n; \ > > + \ > > + if (unlikely(!hlist_empty(&(mm)->mmu_notifier.head))) { \ > > + rcu_read_lock(); \ > > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(__mn, __n, \ > > + &(mm)->mmu_notifier.head, \ > > + hlist) \ > > + if (__mn->ops->function) \ > > + __mn->ops->function(__mn, \ > > + mm, \ > > + args); \ > > + rcu_read_unlock(); \ > > + } \ > > + } while (0) > > Andrew recomended local variables for parameters used multile times. This > means the mm parameter here. I don't exactly see what "buggy macro" meant? I already use parenthesis as needed to avoid the need of local variables to be safe. Not really sure what's buggy, sorry! > Note also Andrew's comments on the use of 0x00ff... I thought I tried the (void) but it didn't work and your solution worked, but perhaps I did something wrong, I'll try again with (void) nevertheless. > > +/* > > + * No synchronization. This function can only be called when only a single > > + * process remains that performs teardown. > > + */ > > +void mmu_notifier_release(struct mm_struct *mm) > > +{ > > + struct mmu_notifier *mn; > > + struct hlist_node *n, *tmp; > > + > > + if (unlikely(!hlist_empty(&mm->mmu_notifier.head))) { > > + hlist_for_each_entry_safe(mn, n, tmp, > > + &mm->mmu_notifier.head, hlist) { > > + hlist_del(&mn->hlist); > > + if (mn->ops->release) > > + mn->ops->release(mn, mm); > > + } > > + } > > +} > > One could avoid a hlist_for_each_entry_safe here by simply always deleting > the first object. Agreed, the current construct come from the fact we previously didn't assume nobody could ever call mmu_notifier_unregister by the time mm_users is 0. > Also re the _notify variants: The binding to pte_clear_flush_young etc > will become a problem for notifiers that want to sleep because > pte_clear_flush is usually called with the pte lock held. See f.e. > try_to_unmap_one, page_mkclean_one etc. Calling __free_page out of the PT lock is much bigger change. do_wp_page will require changes anyway when the sleepable notifiers are merged. > It would be better if the notifier calls could be moved outside of the > pte lock. The point is that it can't make a difference right now, and my objective was to avoid unnecessary source code duplication (later it will be necessary, right now it isn't). By the time you rework do_wp_page, removing _notify will be a very minor detail compared to the rest of the changes to do_wp_page IMHO. Expanding it now won't provide a real advantage later. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists