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, 10 Mar 2011 08:38:09 -0800
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Stephen Wilson <wilsons@...rt.ca>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux390@...ibm.com, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] make *_gate_vma accept mm_struct instead of
 task_struct II

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:00:32AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 07:31:56PM -0500, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> > 
> > Morally, the question of whether an address lies in a gate vma should be asked
> > with respect to an mm, not a particular task.
> > 
> > Practically, dropping the dependency on task_struct will help make current and
> > future operations on mm's more flexible and convenient.  In particular, it
> > allows some code paths to avoid the need to hold task_lock.
> > 
> > The only architecture this change impacts in any significant way is x86_64.
> > The principle change on that architecture is to mirror TIF_IA32 via
> > a new flag in mm_context_t. 
> 
> The problem is -- you're adding a likely cache miss on mm_struct for
> every 32bit compat syscall now, even if they don't need mm_struct
> currently (and a lot of them do not) Unless there's a very good
> justification to make up for this performance issue elsewhere
> (including numbers) this seems like a bad idea.

Hmm I see you're only setting it on exec time actually on rereading
the patches. I thought you were changing TS_COMPAT which is in
the syscall path.

Never mind.  I have no problems with doing such a change on exec
time.

-Andi
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ