linux-kernel - Re: [v3 0/9] parallelized "struct page" zeroing

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:   Wed, 31 May 2017 18:31:31 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [v3 0/9] parallelized "struct page" zeroing

On Tue 30-05-17 13:16:50, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> >Could you be more specific? E.g. how are other stores done in
> >__init_single_page safe then? I am sorry to be dense here but how does
> >the full 64B store differ from other stores done in the same function.
> 
> Hi Michal,
> 
> It is safe to do regular 8-byte and smaller stores (stx, st, sth, stb)
> without membar, but they are slower compared to STBI which require a membar
> before memory can be accessed.

OK, so why cannot we make zero_struct_page 8x 8B stores, other arches
would do memset. You said it would be slower but would that be
measurable? I am sorry to be so persistent here but I would be really
happier if this didn't depend on the deferred initialization. If this is
absolutely a no-go then I can live with that of course.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs