linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm: Pass virtual address to [__]p{te,ud,md}_free

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: <1248084041.30899.7.camel@pasglop>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:00:41 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc:	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...cali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mm: Pass virtual address to
 [__]p{te,ud,md}_free_tlb()

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 10:10 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> Maybe I don't understand your description correctly. The TLB contains
> PMDs, but you say the HW still logically performs another translation
> step using entries in the PMD pages? If I understand that correctly,
> then generic mm does not actually care and would logically fit better
> if those entries were "linux ptes". 

They are :-)

> The pte invalidation routines
> give the virtual address, which you could use to invalidate the TLB.

For PTEs, yes, but not for those PMD entries. IE. I need the virtual
address when destroying PMDs so that I can invalidate those "indirect"
pages. PTEs are already taken care of by existing mechanisms.

Cheers,
Ben.
 

--
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/