linux-kernel - Re: Regression: x86/mm: new _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit conflicts with existing use

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:	Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:53:36 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"Cyrill Gorcunov" <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...capital.net>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<Xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"Pavel Emelyanov" <xemul@...allels.com>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: Regression: x86/mm: new _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit conflicts
 with existing use

>>> On 21.08.13 at 16:12, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 02:48:20PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> 179ef71c (mm: save soft-dirty bits on swapped pages) introduces a new
>> PTE bit on x86 _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY which has the same value as _PTE_PSE
>> and _PTE_PAT.
>> 
>> With a Xen PV guest, the use of the _PTE_PAT will result in the page
>> having unexpected cachability which will introduce a range of subtle
>> performance and correctness issues.  Xen programs the entry 4 in the PAT
>> table with WC so a page that was previously WB will end up as WC.
>> 
> 
> David, could you please explain, Xen keeps and analyze _PTE_PAT bit
> for ptes which are not present?

No, the problem isn't with not-present PTEs (i.e. swap entries),
but with present ones - the same bit (7) is being used for both,
according to this comment:

/*
 * Tracking soft dirty bit when a page goes to a swap is tricky.
 * We need a bit which can be stored in pte _and_ not conflict
 * with swap entry format. On x86 bits 6 and 7 are *not* involved
 * into swap entry computation, but bit 6 is used for nonlinear
 * file mapping, so we borrow bit 7 for soft dirty tracking.
 */

Or are you telling me that the comment is misleading (at least me),
and this applies only to not-present PTEs? And even then - where
would the value of the original PAT bit be stored while swapped
out (or is it impossible - now and forever - for WC pages to get
swapped)?

Jan

--
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/