linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 09 May 2008 21:04:47 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, steiner@....com,
	holt@....com, npiggin@...e.de, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	kanojsarcar@...oo.com, rdreier@...co.com,
	swise@...ngridcomputing.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	avi@...ranet.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hugh@...itas.com,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, aliguori@...ibm.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
	marcelo@...ck.org, dada1@...mosbay.com, paulmck@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem

On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 20:55 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 08:37:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Another possibility, would something like this work?
> > 
> >  
> >  /*
> >   * null out the begin function, no new begin calls can be made
> >   */
> >  rcu_assing_pointer(my_notifier.invalidate_start_begin, NULL); 
> > 
> >  /*
> >   * lock/unlock all rmap locks in any order - this ensures that any
> >   * pending start() will have its end() function called.
> >   */
> >  mm_barrier(mm);
> > 
> >  /*
> >   * now that no new start() call can be made and all start()/end() pairs
> >   * are complete we can remove the notifier.
> >   */
> >  mmu_notifier_remove(mm, my_notifier);
> > 
> > 
> > This requires a mmu_notifier instance per attached mm and that
> > __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() uses rcu_dereference() to obtain
> > the function.
> > 
> > But I think its enough to ensure that:
> > 
> >   for each start an end will be called
> 
> We don't need that, it's perfectly ok if start is called but end is
> not, it's ok to unregister in the middle as I guarantee ->release is
> called before mmu_notifier_unregister returns (if ->release is needed
> at all, not the case for KVM/GRU).
> 
> Unregister is already solved with srcu/rcu without any additional
> complication as we don't need the guarantee that for each start an end
> will be called.
> 
> > It can however happen that end is called without start - but we could
> > handle that I think.
> 
> The only reason mm_lock() was introduced is to solve "register", to
> guarantee that for each end there was a start. We can't handle end
> called without start in the driver.
> 
> The reason the driver must be prevented to register in the middle of
> start/end, if that if it ever happens the driver has no way to know it
> must stop the secondary mmu page faults to call get_user_pages and
> instantiate sptes/secondarytlbs on pages that will be freed as soon as
> zap_page_range starts.

Right - then I got it backwards. Never mind me then..

--
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/