linux-kernel - Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts

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:	Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:32:04 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"Xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts

Hi Jeremy,

I think you got most of your questions already hashed out, but
I could make a suggestion...

On Thursday 19 March 2009 06:17:03 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> The comment in arch/x86/mm/gup.c:gup_get_pte() says:
>
> 	[...] What
> 	 * we do have is the guarantee that a pte will only either go from not
> 	 * present to present, or present to not present or both -- it will not
> 	 * switch to a completely different present page without a TLB flush in
> 	 * between; something that we are blocking by holding interrupts off.
>
>
> Disabling the interrupt will prevent the tlb flush IPI from coming in
> and flushing this cpu's tlb, but I don't see how it will prevent some
> other cpu from actually updating the pte in the pagetable, which is what
> we're concerned about here.

Yes, I don't believe it is possible to have a *new* pte installed until
the flush is done.


> Is this the only reason to disable
> interrupts?  Would we need to do it for the !PAE cases?

It has to pin page tables, and pin pages as well.


> Also, assuming that disabling the interrupt is enough to get the
> guarantees we need here, there's a Xen problem because we don't use IPIs
> for cross-cpu tlb flushes (well, it happens within Xen).  I'll have to
> think a bit about how to deal with that, but I'm thinking that we could
> add a per-cpu "tlb flushes blocked" flag, and maintain some kind of
> per-cpu deferred tlb flush count so we can get around to doing the flush
> eventually.
>
> But I want to make sure I understand the exact algorithm here.

FWIW, powerpc actually can flush tlbs without IPIs, and it also has
a gup_fast. powerpc RCU frees its page _tables_ so we can walk them,
and then I use speculative page references in order to be able to
take a reference on the page without having it pinned.

Turning gup_get_pte into a pvop would be a bit nasty because on !PAE
it is just a single load, and even on PAE it is pretty cheap.

--
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/