linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] add replace_page(): change the page pte is pointing to.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49E66450.3070404@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:48:48 +0300
From:	Izik Eidus <ieidus@...hat.com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, avi@...hat.com, chrisw@...hat.com,
	mtosatti@...hat.com, hugh@...itas.com,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] add replace_page(): change the page pte is	pointing
 to.

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 03:09:25PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>   
>> On Thu,  9 Apr 2009 06:58:40 +0300
>> Izik Eidus <ieidus@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> replace_page() allow changing the mapping of pte from one physical page
>>> into diffrent physical page.
>>>       
>> At a high level, this is very similar to what page migration does.  Yet
>> this implementation shares nothing with the page migration code.
>>
>> Can this situation be improved?
>>     
>
> This was discussed last time too. Basically the thing is that using
> migration entry with its special page fault paths, for this looks a
> bit of an overkill complexity and unnecessary dependency on the
> migration code. 

I agree about that.

> All we need is to mark the pte readonly. replace_page
> is a no brainer then. The brainer part is page_wrprotect
> (page_wrprotect is like fork).
>
> The data visibility in the final memcmp you mentioned in the other
> mail is supposedly taken care of by page_wrprotect too. It already
> does flush_cache_page for the virtual indexed and not physically
> tagged caches. page_wrprotect has to also IPI all CPUs to nuke any not
> wrprotected tlb entry. I don't think we need further smp memory
> barriers when we're guaranteed all tlb entries are wrprotected in the
> other cpus and an IPI and invlpg run in them, to be sure we read the
> data stable during memcmp even if we read through the kernel
> pagetables and the last userland write happened through userland ptes
> before they become effective wrprotected by the IPI.
>   

Yup agree.

--
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/