[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <499DAEE4.8010507@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:11:32 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] vm_unmap_aliases: allow callers to inhibit TLB flush
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Then what is the point of the vm_unmap_aliases? If you are doing it
> for security it won't work because other CPUs might still be able
> to write through dangling TLBs. If you are not doing it for
> security then it does not need to be done at all.
>
Xen will make sure any danging tlb entries are flushed before handing
the page out to anyone else.
> Unless it is something strange that Xen does with the page table
> structure and you just need to get rid of those?
>
Yeah. A pte pointing at a page holds a reference on it, saying that it
belongs to the domain. You can't return it to Xen until the refcount is 0.
>> (Xen does something like this internally to either defer or avoid many
>> expensive tlb operations.)
>>
>>
>>>> For Xen dom0, when someone does something like dma_alloc_coherent, we
>>>> allocate the memory as normal, and then swizzle the underlying physical
>>>> pages to be machine physically contiguous (vs contiguous pseudo-physical
>>>> guest memory), and within the addressable range for the device. In
>>>> order to do that, we need to make sure the pages are only mapped by the
>>>> linear mapping, and there are no other aliases.
>>>>
>>> These are just stale aliases that will no longer be operated on
>>> unless there is a kernel bug -- so can you just live with them,
>>> or is it a security issue of memory access escaping its domain?
>>>
>> The underlying physical page is being exchanged, so the old page is
>> being returned to Xen's free page pool. It will refuse to do the
>> exchange if the guest still has pagetable references to the page.
>>
>
> But it refuses to do this because it is worried about dangling TLBs?
> Or some implementation detail that can't handle the page table
> entries?
>
Right. The actual pte pointing at the page hold the reference. We need
to drop all the references before doing the exchange.
> Hmm. Let's just try to establish that it is really required first.
>
Well, its desireable anyway. The using IPI for any kind of tlb flushing
is pretty pessimal under Xen (or any virtual environment); Xen has a
much better idea about which real cpus have stale tlb state for which vcpus.
> Or... what if we just allow a compile and/or boot time flag to direct
> that it does not want lazy vmap unmapping and it will just revert to
> synchronous unmapping? If Xen needs lots of flushing anyway it might
> not be a win anyway.
>
That may be worth considering.
J
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists