| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130614002132.GC4533@bbox>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:21:32 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Andrea Righi <andrea@...terlinux.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Hommey <mh@...ndium.org>, Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dgiani@...illa.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] vrange: Clear volatility on new mmaps
Hello John,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 04:43:58PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 11:28 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >Hey John,
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 09:22:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >>At lsf-mm, the issue was brought up that there is a precedence with
> >>interfaces like mlock, such that new mappings in a pre-existing range
> >>do no inherit the mlock state.
> >>
> >>This is mostly because mlock only modifies the existing vmas, and so
> >>any new mmaps create new vmas, which won't be mlocked.
> >>
> >>Since volatility is not stored in the vma (for good cause, specfically
> >>as we'd have to have manage file volatility differently from anonymous
> >>and we're likely to manage volatility on small chunks of memory, which
> >>would cause lots of vma splitting and churn), this patch clears volatilty
> >>on new mappings, to ensure that we don't inherit volatility if memory in
> >>an existing volatile range is unmapped and then re-mapped with something
> >>else.
> >>
> >>Thus, this patch forces any volatility to be cleared on mmap.
> >If we have lots of node on vroot but it doesn't include newly mmmaping
> >vma range, it's purely unnecessary cost and that's never what we want.
> >
> >>XXX: We expect this patch to be not well loved by mm folks, and are open
> >>to alternative methods here. Its more of a place holder to address
> >>the issue from lsf-mm and hopefully will spur some further discussion.
> >Another idea is we can add "bool is_vrange" in struct vm_area_struct.
> >It is protected by vrange_lock. The scenario is following as,
> >
> >When do_vrange is called with VRANGE_VOLATILE, it iterates vmas
> >and mark the vma->is_vrange to true. So, we can avoid tree traversal
> >if the is_vrange is false when munmap is called and newly mmaped vma
> >doesn't need to clear any volatility.
>
> We could look further into this approach if folks think its the best
> way to go. Though it has the downside of having the split the vmas
> when we're dealing with a large number of smallish objects. Also
We don't need to split vma, which I don't really want.
I meant followig as
1)
0x100000 0x10000000
| VMA : isvrange = false |
2) vrange(0x200000, 0x100000, VRANGE_VOLATILE)
0x100000 0x10000000
| VMA : isvrange = true |
vroot
/
node 1
2) vrange(0x400000, 0x100000, VRANGE_VOLATILE)
0x100000 0x10000000
| VMA : isvrange = true |
vroot
/ \
node 1 node 2
3) unmap(0x400000, 0x100000, VRANGE_NOVOLATILE)
sys_munmap:
if (vma->is_vrange) {
vrange_clear(0x400000, 0x400000 + 0x100000 -1);
if (vma_vrange_all_clear(vma)
vma->isvrange = false;
}
0x100000 0x10000000
| VMA : isvrange = true |
vroot
/
node 1
3) unmap(0x200000, 0x100000, VRANGE_NOVOLATILE)
sys_munmap:
if (vma->is_vrange) {
vrange_clear(0x200000, 0x200000 + 0x100000 -1);
if (vma_vrange_all_clear(vma)
vma->isvrange = false;
}
0x100000 0x10000000
| VMA : isvrange = false |
vroot
/ \
4) purging path
bool really_vrange_page(page *page)
{
return __vrange_address(vroot, startofpage, endofpage);
}
shrink_page_list
..
..
vma = rmap_from_page(page);
if (vma->is_vrange) {
/*
* vma's is_vrange could have false positive
* so that we should check it.
*/
if (really_vrange_page(page))
purge_page(page);
}
..
..
So we can reduce unnecessary vroot traverse without vma splitting.
> we'd be increasing the vma_struct size for everyone, even if no one
> is using volatile ranges, which may be a bigger concern.
I think vma is not a sensitive about size and historically, we have
been added a variable easily. Of course, another ideas which don't
need to increase vma size are welcome but IMHO, it'a good compromise
between performance and memoryfootprint.
>
> Also it means we'd be managing anonymous and file volatility with
> different structures (though that's not the end of the world).
volatility still is kept in vrange->purged.
Do I miss something?
>
> thanks
> -john
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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