linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Take all anon_vma locks in anon_vma

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:	Mon, 3 May 2010 19:18:37 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Take all anon_vma locks in anon_vma_lock

On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:11:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 19:02 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 06:55:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > This does leave me worrying about concurrent faults poking at
> > > vma->vm_end without synchronization.
> > 
> > I didn't check this patch in detail yet. I agree it can be removed and
> > I think it can be safely replaced with the page_table_lock.
> 
> Sure, it could probably be replaced with the ptl, but a single
> anon_vma->lock would I think be better since there's more of them.

ptl not enough, or it'd break if stack grows fast more than the size
of one pmd, page_table_lock enough instead.

Keeping anon_vma lock is sure fine with me ;), I was informally asked
if it was a must have, and I couldn't foresee any problem in
_replacing_ it (not removing) with page_table_lock (which I hope I
mentioned in my answer ;). But I never had an interest to remove it,
just I couldn't find any good reason to keep it either other than
"paranoid just in case", which is good enough justification to me ;)
considering these archs are uncommon and by definition gets less
testing.
--
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/