linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/11] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.

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: <20091102161248.GB15423@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:12:48 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] Add "handle page fault" PV helper.


* Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:22:14AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > index f4cee90..14707dc 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > @@ -952,6 +952,9 @@ do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code)
> > >  	int write;
> > >  	int fault;
> > >  
> > > +	if (arch_handle_page_fault(regs, error_code))
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > 
> > This patch is not acceptable unless it's done cleaner. Currently we 
> > already have 3 callbacks in do_page_fault() (kmemcheck, mmiotrace, 
> > notifier), and this adds a fourth one. Please consolidate them into a 
> > single callback site, this is a hotpath on x86.
> > 
> This call is patched out by paravirt patching mechanism so overhead 
> should be zero for non paravirt cases. [...]

arch_handle_page_fault() isnt upstream yet - precisely what is the 
instruction sequence injected into do_page_fault() in the patched-out 
case?

> [...] What do you want to achieve by consolidate them into single 
> callback? [...]

Less bloat in a hotpath and a shared callback infrastructure.

> [...] I mean the code will still exist and will have to be executed on 
> every #PF. Is the goal to move them out of line?

The goal is to have a single callback site for all the users - which 
call-site is patched out ideally - on non-paravirt too if needed. Most 
of these callbacks/notifier-chains have are inactive most of the time.

I.e. a very low overhead 'conditional callback' facility, and a single 
one - not just lots of them sprinkled around the code.

	Ingo
--
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/