linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/3] mm: fault handler to replace nopage and populate

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]

Message-ID: <20061009121417.GA3785@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:14:17 +0200
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: fault handler to replace nopage and populate

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 10:07:50PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 13:58 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > 
> > The VM won't see that you have struct pages backing the ptes, and won't
> > do the right refcounting or rmap stuff... But for file backed mappings,
> > all the critical rmap stuff should be set up at mmap time, so you might
> > have another option to simply always do the nopfn thing, as far as the
> > VM is concerned (ie. even when you do have a struct page)
> 
> Any reason why it wouldn't work to flip that bit on the first no_page()
> after a migration ? A migration always involves destroying all PTEs and
> is done with a per-object mutex held that no_page() takes too, so we can
> be pretty sure that the first nopage can set that bit before any PTE is
> actually inserted in the mapping after all the previous ones have been
> invalidated... That would avoid having to walk the vma's.

Ok I guess that would work. I was kind of thinking that one needs to
hold the mmap_sem for writing when changing the flags, but so long
as everyone *else* does, then I guess you can get exclusion from just
the read lock. And your per-object mutex would prevent concurrent
nopages from modifying it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/