linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] zap_pte_range: update addr when forcing flush after TLB batching faiure

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:	Sun, 02 Nov 2014 07:25:02 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] zap_pte_range: update addr when forcing flush
 after TLB batching faiure

On Sat, 2014-11-01 at 10:01 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >
> > TLB flushing is only me I think, I'll engage my brain after breakfast
> > and see if is all good
> 
> Ping? Breakfast is either long over, of you're starting to look a bit
> like Mr Creosote...

Argh... dropped that ball.

> Anyway, Will, I assume this is not a correctness issue for you, just
> an annoying performance issue. Right? Or is there actually some issue
> with the actual range not being set to be sufficiently large?

It should be fine for us in term of correctness I think. We rely on the
lazy mmu bits for batching/flushing on hash64, we use
__tlb_remove_tlb_entry() for immediate flush on hash32 and the SW loaded
TLB cases are pretty dumb here and should be generally unaffected.

> Also, it strikes me that I *think* that you might be able to extend
> your patch to remove the whole "need_flush" field, since as far as I
> can tell, "tlb->need_flush" is now equivalent to "tlb->start <
> tlb->end". Of course, as long as we still require that
> "need_flush_all", that doesn't actually save us any space, so maybe
> it's not worth changing.

Cheers,
Ben.

>                        Linus
> --
> 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/


--
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/