linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/mm: remove arch-specific ptep_get_and

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: <CC00D1B7.35E5B%keir.xen@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:49:11 +0100
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.xen@...il.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
CC:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/mm: remove arch-specific
 ptep_get_and_clear() function

On 15/06/2012 10:41, "David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com> wrote:

> This reasoning is probably not correct.  When a dirty bit must be
> updated in a PTE the processor does a pagetable walk (possibly using any
> cached page table structures).  The AMD APM section 5.4.2 states:
> 
> "The processor never sets the Accessed bit or the Dirty bit for a not
> present page (P = 0)."
> 
> and
> 
> "If PTE[D] is cleared to 0, software can rely on the fact that the page
> has not been written."

Writing of dirty and accessed bits is done as part of the page-table walk on
TLB fill. A/D bits never have writeback caching semantics. It wouldn't be
safe: e.g., on unmap, TLB flushes happen after ptes have been cleared (to
avoid TLB-fill races), but that would mean that A/D updates could be lost
even on non-explicit unmaps (e.g., page out) which is obviously bad.

> Thus this patch would /introduce/ a race where a dirty bit set would be
> lost (rather than extending the window where this would happen).
> 
> However (and this is a weaker argument), no sensible userspace
> application should be accessing pages that are being unmapped or
> remapped (since it is unpredictable whether they will fault) so perhaps
> this additional unpredictable behaviour is acceptable?

If there's a big win to be had through batching, we're better off devising a
hypercall method for capturing the atomic rmw operation as it stands, rather
than subtly messing with semantics.

 -- Keir


--
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/