linux-kernel - TLB flush question (x86

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAErB21iHz_ToVzfU8aPkY8OW5iMOTPgPMdQBsmxo=5YUCMb6Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 3 Sep 2011 00:47:48 -0500
From:	Arkaprava Basu <arkaprava.basu@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: TLB flush question (x86_64)

Hello,

     I am using 2.6.31 kernel on x86_64 (with SMP configuration). I
have a confusion on a TLB flush function.
     I found that the method tlb_flush_mmu (include/asm-generic/tlb.h)
, which is called by many system calls like munmap,madvise,mprotect
etc; ignores the virtual address range (start and end parameters) for
which it is called. It internally calls tlb_flush method, which on x86
gets converted to flush_tlb_mm. It seems that flush_tlb_mm flushes out
all the mappings for a given mm_struct (i.e., the whole user address
space for a process) from the tlb. Is there any particular reason why
the entire address space is flushed from the tlb while only a range of
virtual address space was supposedly required to be flushed? For
example why the method flush_tlb_range , which would have flushed
mappings belonging to a given virtual address range only could not
have been used instead of flush_tlb_mm? Is there any performance or
some other correctness related concern for not doing that?

Thanks
Arka
--
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/