linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] mm: fix MADV_[FREE|DONTNEED] TLB flush miss problem

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, 13 Aug 2017 14:08:08 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] mm: fix MADV_[FREE|DONTNEED] TLB flush miss
 problem

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:14:21AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:08:17PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >> void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> >> 		unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> >> {
> >> -	arch_tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end);
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * If there are parallel threads are doing PTE changes on same range
> >> +	 * under non-exclusive lock(e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
> >> +	 * flush by batching, a thread has stable TLB entry can fail to flush
> >> +	 * the TLB by observing pte_none|!pte_dirty, for example so flush TLB
> >> +	 * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	bool force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);
> >> +
> >> +	arch_tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end, force);
> >> }
> > 
> > I don't understand the comment nor the ordering. What guarantees we see
> > the increment if we need to?
> 
> The comment regards the problem that is described in the change-log, and a
> long thread that is referenced in it. So the question is whether “I don’t
> understand” means “I don’t understand” or “it is not clear enough”. I’ll
> be glad to address either one - just say which.

I only read the comment, that _should_ be sufficient. Comments that rely
on Changelogs and random threads are useless.

The comment on its own simply doesn't make sense.

> As for the ordering - I tried to clarify it in the thread of the commit. Let
> me know if it is clear now.

Yeah, I'll do a new patch because if it only cares about _the_ PTL, we
can do away with that extra smp_mb__after_atomic().