| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 22:39:34 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: [PATCH 7/8] mm: reinstate ZERO_PAGE
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki has observed customers of earlier kernels taking
advantage of the ZERO_PAGE: which we stopped do_anonymous_page() from
using in 2.6.24. And there were a couple of regression reports on LKML.
Following suggestions from Linus, reinstate do_anonymous_page() use of
the ZERO_PAGE; but this time avoid dirtying its struct page cacheline
with (map)count updates - let vm_normal_page() regard it as abnormal.
Use it only on arches which __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL (x86, s390, sh32,
most powerpc): that's not essential, but minimizes additional branches
(keeping them in the unlikely pte_special case); and incidentally
excludes mips (some models of which needed eight colours of ZERO_PAGE
to avoid costly exceptions).
Don't be fanatical about avoiding ZERO_PAGE updates: get_user_pages()
callers won't want to make exceptions for it, so increment its count
there. Changes to mlock and migration? happily seems not needed.
In most places it's quicker to check pfn than struct page address:
prepare a __read_mostly zero_pfn for that. Does get_dump_page()
still need its ZERO_PAGE check? probably not, but keep it anyway.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
---
I have not studied the performance of this at all: I'd rather it go
into mmotm where others may decide whether it's a good thing or not.
mm/memory.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
--- mm6/mm/memory.c 2009-09-07 13:16:53.000000000 +0100
+++ mm7/mm/memory.c 2009-09-07 13:17:01.000000000 +0100
@@ -107,6 +107,17 @@ static int __init disable_randmaps(char
}
__setup("norandmaps", disable_randmaps);
+static unsigned long zero_pfn __read_mostly;
+
+/*
+ * CONFIG_MMU architectures set up ZERO_PAGE in their paging_init()
+ */
+static int __init init_zero_pfn(void)
+{
+ zero_pfn = page_to_pfn(ZERO_PAGE(0));
+ return 0;
+}
+core_initcall(init_zero_pfn);
/*
* If a p?d_bad entry is found while walking page tables, report
@@ -499,7 +510,9 @@ struct page *vm_normal_page(struct vm_ar
if (HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL) {
if (likely(!pte_special(pte)))
goto check_pfn;
- if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_PFNMAP | VM_MIXEDMAP)))
+ if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_PFNMAP | VM_MIXEDMAP))
+ return NULL;
+ if (pfn != zero_pfn)
print_bad_pte(vma, addr, pte, NULL);
return NULL;
}
@@ -1144,9 +1157,14 @@ struct page *follow_page(struct vm_area_
goto no_page;
if ((flags & FOLL_WRITE) && !pte_write(pte))
goto unlock;
+
page = vm_normal_page(vma, address, pte);
- if (unlikely(!page))
- goto bad_page;
+ if (unlikely(!page)) {
+ if ((flags & FOLL_DUMP) ||
+ pte_pfn(pte) != zero_pfn)
+ goto bad_page;
+ page = pte_page(pte);
+ }
if (flags & FOLL_GET)
get_page(page);
@@ -2085,10 +2103,19 @@ gotten:
if (unlikely(anon_vma_prepare(vma)))
goto oom;
- VM_BUG_ON(old_page == ZERO_PAGE(0));
- new_page = alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vma, address);
- if (!new_page)
- goto oom;
+
+ if (pte_pfn(orig_pte) == zero_pfn) {
+ new_page = alloc_zeroed_user_highpage_movable(vma, address);
+ if (!new_page)
+ goto oom;
+ } else {
+ new_page = alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vma, address);
+ if (!new_page)
+ goto oom;
+ cow_user_page(new_page, old_page, address, vma);
+ }
+ __SetPageUptodate(new_page);
+
/*
* Don't let another task, with possibly unlocked vma,
* keep the mlocked page.
@@ -2098,8 +2125,6 @@ gotten:
clear_page_mlock(old_page);
unlock_page(old_page);
}
- cow_user_page(new_page, old_page, address, vma);
- __SetPageUptodate(new_page);
if (mem_cgroup_newpage_charge(new_page, mm, GFP_KERNEL))
goto oom_free_new;
@@ -2594,6 +2619,15 @@ static int do_anonymous_page(struct mm_s
spinlock_t *ptl;
pte_t entry;
+ if (HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL && !(flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE)) {
+ entry = pte_mkspecial(pfn_pte(zero_pfn, vma->vm_page_prot));
+ ptl = pte_lockptr(mm, pmd);
+ spin_lock(ptl);
+ if (!pte_none(*page_table))
+ goto unlock;
+ goto setpte;
+ }
+
/* Allocate our own private page. */
pte_unmap(page_table);
@@ -2617,6 +2651,7 @@ static int do_anonymous_page(struct mm_s
inc_mm_counter(mm, anon_rss);
page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, address);
+setpte:
set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, entry);
/* No need to invalidate - it was non-present before */
--
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