linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb

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:	Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:29:00 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:39 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> 
>>Would it be better off to start off with a new API for this? The
>>mmu gather I think is traditionally entirely for dealing with
>>page removal...
> 
> 
> It would be weird because the new API would mostly duplicate this one,
> and we would end up with duplicated hooks..

They could just #define one to the other though, there are only a small
number of them. Is there a downside to not making them distinct? i386
for example probably would just keep doing a tlb flush for fork and not
want to worry about touching the tlb gather stuff.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/