linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: per-thread vma caching

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: <1393045046.2473.6.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date:	Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:57:26 -0800
From:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
	"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: per-thread vma caching

On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 20:55 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Btw, one concern I had is regarding seqnum overflows... if such
> > > scenarios should happen we'd end up potentially returning bogus vmas and
> > > getting bus errors and other sorts of issues. So we'd have to flush the
> > > caches, but, do we care? I guess on 32bit systems it could be a bit more
> > > possible to trigger given enough forking.
> > 
> > I guess we should do something like
> > 
> >     if (unlikely(!++seqnum))
> >         flush_vma_cache()
> > 
> > just to not have to worry about it.
> > 
> > And we can either use a "#ifndef CONFIG_64BIT" to disable it for the
> > 64-bit case (because no, we really don't need to worry about overflow
> > in 64 bits ;), or just decide that a 32-bit sequence number actually
> > packs better in the structures, and make it be an "u32" even on 64-bit
> > architectures?
> > 
> > It looks like a 32-bit sequence number might pack nicely next to the
> > 
> >     unsigned brk_randomized:1;
> 
> And probably specially so for structures like task and mm. I hadn't
> considered the benefits of packing vs overflowing. So we can afford
> flushing all tasks's vmacache every 4 billion forks.

ah, not quite that much, I was just thinking of dup_mmap, of course we
also increment upon invalidations.

--
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/