linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v5

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, 4 Feb 2008 22:11:24 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
	Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, steiner@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	daniel.blueman@...drics.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmu notifiers #v5

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:09:01AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > 
> > > > Right but that pin requires taking a refcount which we cannot do.
> > > 
> > > GRU can use my patch without the pin. XPMEM obviously can't use my
> > > patch as my invalidate_page[s] are under the PT lock (a feature to fit
> > > GRU/KVM in the simplest way), this is why an incremental patch adding
> > > invalidate_range_start/end would be required to support XPMEM too.
> > 
> > Doesnt the kernel in some situations release the page before releasing the 
> > pte lock? Then there will be an external pte pointing to a page that may 
> > now have a different use. Its really bad if that pte does allow writes.
> 
> Sure the kernel does that most of the time, which is for example why I
> had to use invalidate_page instead of invalidate_pages inside
> zap_pte_range. Zero problems with that (this is also the exact reason
> why I mentioned the tlb flushing code would need changes to convert
> some page in pages).

Zero problems only if you find having a single callout for every page 
acceptable. So the invalidate_range in your patch is only working 
sometimes. And even if it works then it has to be used on 2M range. Seems 
to be a bit fragile and needlessly complex.

"conversion of some page in pages"? A proposal to defer the freeing of the 
pages until after the pte_unlock?

--
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/