linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01 of 12] Core of mmu notifiers

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.4.64.0804281819020.2502@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
	Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01 of 12] Core of mmu notifiers

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> Frankly I've absolutely no idea why rcu is needed in all rmap code
> when walking the page->mapping. Definitely the PG_locked is taken so
> there's no way page->mapping could possibly go away under the rmap
> code, hence the anon_vma can't go away as it's queued in the vma, and
> the vma has to go away before the page is zapped out of the pte.

zap_pte_range can race with the rmap code and it does not take the page 
lock. The page may not go away since a refcount was taken but the mapping 
can go away. Without RCU you have no guarantee that the anon_vma is 
existing when you take the lock. 

How long were you away from VM development?

> Now the double atomic op may not be horrible when not contented, as it
> works on the same cacheline but with cacheline bouncing with
> contention it sounds doubly horrible than a single cacheline bounce
> and I don't see the point of it as you can't use rcu anyways, so you
> can't possibly take advantage of whatever microoptimization done over
> the original locking.

Cachelines are acquired for exclusive use for a mininum duration. 
Multiple atomic operations can be performed after a cacheline becomes 
exclusive without danger of bouncing.
--
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/