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]

Message-ID: <5215DAC0.8080806@citrix.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:32:48 +0100
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...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>
Subject: Re: Regression: x86/mm: new _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit conflicts with
 existing use

On 22/08/13 00:04, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> I personally don't see bug here because
>>
>>  - this swapped page soft dirty bit is set for non-present entries only,
>>    never for present ones, just at moment we form swap pte entry
>>
>>  - i don't find any code which would test for this bit directly without
>>    is_swap_pte call
> 
> Ok, having gone through the places that use swp_*soft_dirty(), I have
> to agree. Afaik, it's only ever used on a swap-entry that has (by
> definition) the P bit clear. So with or without Xen, I don't see how
> it can make any difference.
> 
> David/Konrad - did you actually see any issues, or was this just from
> (mis)reading the code?

There are no Xen related bugs in the code, we were misreading it.

It was my call to raise this as a regression without a repro and clearly
this was the wrong decision.

However, having looked at the soft dirty implementation and specifically
the userspace ABI I think that it is far to closely coupled to the
current implementation.  I think this will constrain future development
of the feature should userspace require a more efficient ABI than
scanning all of /proc/<pid>/pagemaps.

Minimal downtime during 'live' checkpointing of a running task needs the
checkpointer to find and write out dirty pages faster than the task can
dirty them.  This seems less likely to be possible if every iteration
all PTEs have to be scanned by the checkpointer instead of (e.g.,)
accessing a separate list of dirtied pages.

David
--
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/