linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges

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.4.64.0802161122350.25573@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:26:51 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>, 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>,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>, steiner@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	daniel.blueman@...drics.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/6] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address ranges

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:49:01 -0800 Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> 
> > The invalidation of address ranges in a mm_struct needs to be
> > performed when pages are removed or permissions etc change.
> 
> hm.  Do they?  Why?  If I'm in the process of zero-copy writing a hunk of
> memory out to hardware then do I care if someone write-protects the ptes?
> 
> Spose so, but some fleshing-out of the various scenarios here would clarify
> things.

You care f.e. if the VM needs to writeprotect a memory range and a write 
occurs. In that case the VM needs to be proper write processing and write 
through an external pte would cause memory corruption.

> > If invalidate_range_begin() is called with locks held then we
> > pass a flag into invalidate_range() to indicate that no sleeping is
> > possible. Locks are only held for truncate and huge pages.
> 
> This is so bad.

Ok so I can twidlle around with the inode_mmap_lock to drop it while this 
is called?

> > In two cases we use invalidate_range_begin/end to invalidate
> > single pages because the pair allows holding off new references
> > (idea by Robin Holt).
> 
> Assuming that there is a missing "within the range" in this description, I
> assume that all clients will just throw up theior hands in horror and will
> disallow all references to all parts of the mm.

Right. Missing within the range. We only need to disallow creating new 
ptes right? Why disallow references?
 

> > xip_unmap: We are not taking the PageLock so we cannot
> > use the invalidate_page mmu_rmap_notifier. invalidate_range_begin/end
> > stands in.
> 
> What does "stands in" mean?

Use a range begin / end to invalidate a page.

> > +	mmu_notifier(invalidate_range_begin, mm, start, start + size, 0);
> >  	err = populate_range(mm, vma, start, size, pgoff);
> > +	mmu_notifier(invalidate_range_end, mm, start, start + size, 0);
> 
> To avoid off-by-one confusion the changelogs, documentation and comments
> should be very careful to tell the reader whether the range includes the
> byte at start+size.  I don't thik that was done?

No it was not. I assumed that the convention is always start - (end - 1) 
and the byte at end is not affected by the operation.

--
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/