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, 19 Jul 2019 11:48:13 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] x86/mm/tlb: Privatize cpu_tlbstate

On 7/19/19 11:43 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Andy said that for the lazy tlb optimizations there might soon be more
> shared state. If you prefer, I can move is_lazy outside of tlb_state, and
> not set it in any alternative struct.

I just wanted to make sure that we capture these rules:

1. If the data is only ever accessed on the "owning" CPU via
   this_cpu_*(), put it in 'tlb_state'.
2. If the data is read by other CPUs, put it in 'tlb_state_shared'.

I actually like the idea of having two structs.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ