linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/2] use mmu gather logic for tlb flush in mremap

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 16:37:15 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] use mmu gather logic for tlb flush in mremap

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:48:20AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 11/18/2016 01:53 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I'm not entirely happy with the force_flush vs need_flush games, and I
> > really think this code should be updated to use the same "struct
> > mmu_gather" that we use for the other TLB flushing cases (no need for
> > the page freeing batching, but the tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() logic
> > should be the same).
> 
> I see.
> 
> > 
> > But I guess that's a bigger change, so that wouldn't be approriate for
> > rc5 or stable back-porting anyway. But it would be lovely if somebody
> > could look at that. Hint hint.
> 
> I'll work on it, thanks for the suggestion.

So here it is. I'm not quite sure if I've done the right thing in patch
2/2, i.e. should I just use tlb_flush_mmu or export tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly
and then use it in mremap.c. Please take a look and let me know what you
think, thanks!

Regards,
Aaron