linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] mm: Use updated pmdp_invalidate() inteface to track dirty/accessed bits

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:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 17:01:30 +0530
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/3] mm: Use updated pmdp_invalidate() inteface to track dirty/accessed bits

"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> writes:

> This patch uses modifed pmdp_invalidate(), that return previous value of pmd,
> to transfer dirty and accessed bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c |  8 ++++----
>  mm/huge_memory.c   | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index f0c8b33d99b1..f2fc1ef5bba2 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c

.....

> @@ -1965,7 +1955,6 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>  	page_ref_add(page, HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1);
>  	write = pmd_write(*pmd);
>  	young = pmd_young(*pmd);
> -	dirty = pmd_dirty(*pmd);
>  	soft_dirty = pmd_soft_dirty(*pmd);
>
>  	pmdp_huge_split_prepare(vma, haddr, pmd);
> @@ -1995,8 +1984,6 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>  			if (soft_dirty)
>  				entry = pte_mksoft_dirty(entry);
>  		}
> -		if (dirty)
> -			SetPageDirty(page + i);
>  		pte = pte_offset_map(&_pmd, addr);
>  		BUG_ON(!pte_none(*pte));
>  		set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, entry);
> @@ -2045,7 +2032,15 @@ static void __split_huge_pmd_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
>  	 * and finally we write the non-huge version of the pmd entry with
>  	 * pmd_populate.
>  	 */
> -	pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
> +	old = pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Transfer dirty bit using value returned by pmd_invalidate() to be
> +	 * sure we don't race with CPU that can set the bit under us.
> +	 */
> +	if (pmd_dirty(old))
> +		SetPageDirty(page);
> +
>  	pmd_populate(mm, pmd, pgtable);
>
>  	if (freeze) {


Can we invalidate the pmd early here ? ie, do pmdp_invalidate instead of
pmdp_huge_split_prepare() ?


-aneesh