linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] mmu

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801251206390.7856@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:10:31 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>
cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, steiner@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] mmu_notifier: Core code

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Robin Holt wrote:

> Keep in mind that on a 2048p SSI MPI job starting up, we have 2048 ranks
> doing this at the same time 6 times withing their address range.  That
> seems like a lock which could get hot fairly quickly.  It may be for a
> short period during startup and shutdown, but it is there.

Ok. I guess we need to have a __register_mmu_notifier that expects the 
mmap_sem to be held then?

> > 1. invalidate_all()
> 
> That will be fine as long as we can unregister the ops notifier and free
> the structure.  Otherwise, we end up being called needlessly.

No you cannot do that because there are still callbacks that come later. 
The invalidate_all may lead to invalidate_range() doing nothing for this 
mm. The ops notifier and the freeing of the structure has to wait until 
release().

> > 2. invalidate_range() for each vma
> > 
> > 3. release()
> > 
> > We cannot simply move the call up because there will be future range 
> > callbacks on vma invalidation.
> 
> I am not sure what this means.  Right now, if you were to notify XPMEM
> the process is exiting, we would take care of all the recalling of pages
> exported by this process, clearing those pages cache lines from cache,
> and raising memory protections.  I would assume that moving the callout
> earlier would expect the same of every driver.

That does not sync with the current scheme of the invalidate_range() 
hooks. We would have to do a global invalidate early and then place the 
other invalidate_range hooks in such a way that none is called in later in 
process exit handling.
--
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/