linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] track numbers of pagetable pages

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]

Date:	Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:02:04 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] track numbers of pagetable pages

On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 10:44 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> >  static inline void pgtable_page_dtor(struct mm_struct *mm, struct page *page)
> >  {
> >  	pte_lock_deinit(page);
> > +	dec_mm_counter(mm, MM_PTEPAGES);
> >  	dec_zone_page_state(page, NR_PAGETABLE);
> >  }
> 
> I'm probably missing something really obvious but...
> 
> Is this safe in the non-USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS case? If we're not using
> split-ptlocks then inc/dec_mm_counter() are only safe when done under
> mm->page_table_lock, right? But it looks to me like we can end up doing,
> 
>   __pte_alloc()
>       pte_alloc_one()
>           pgtable_page_ctor()
> 
> before acquiring mm->page_table_lock in __pte_alloc().

No, it's probably not safe.  We'll have to come up with something a bit
different in that case.  Either that, or just kill the non-atomic case.
Surely there's some percpu magic counter somewhere in the kernel that is
optimized for fast (unlocked?) updates and rare, slow reads.

-- Dave

--
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/