linux-kernel - Re: [kvm-devel] [patch 1/6] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801301718530.2454@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:27:37 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Robin Holt <holt@....com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> > Hmmmm.. exit_mmap is only called when the last reference is removed 
> > against the mm right? So no tasks are running anymore. No pages are left. 
> > Do we need to serialize at all for mmu_notifier_release?
> 
> KVM sure doesn't need any locking there.  I thought somebody had to
> possibly take a pin on the "mm_count" and pretend to call
> mmu_notifier_register at will until mmdrop was finally called, in a
> out of order fashion given mmu_notifier_release was implemented like
> if the list could change from under it. Note mmdrop != mmput. mmput
> and in turn mm_users is the serialization point if you prefer to drop
> all locking from _release. Nobody must ever attempt a mmu_notifier_*
> after calling mmput for that mm. That should be enough to be
> safe. I'm fine either ways...

exit_mmap (where we call invalidate_all() and release()) is called when 
mm_users == 0:

void mmput(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
        might_sleep();

        if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->mm_users)) {
                exit_aio(mm);
                exit_mmap(mm);
                if (!list_empty(&mm->mmlist)) {
                        spin_lock(&mmlist_lock);
                        list_del(&mm->mmlist);
                        spin_unlock(&mmlist_lock);
                }
                put_swap_token(mm);
                mmdrop(mm);
        }
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mmput);

So there is only a single thread executing at the time when 
invalidate_all() is called from exit_mmap(). Then we drop the 
pages, and the page tables. After the page tables we call the ->release 
method and then remove the vmas.

So even dropping off the mmu_notifier chain in invalidate_all() could be 
done without an issue and without locking.

Trouble is if other callbacks attempt the same. Do we need to support the 
removal from the mmu_notifier list in invalidate_range()?

--
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/