linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] VM

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140526203232.GC5444@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 26 May 2014 22:32:32 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Cc:	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	Mike Marciniszyn <infinipath@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] VM_PINNED

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:19:16AM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I mentioned at LSF/MM that I wanted to revive this, and at the time there were
> > no disagreements.
> >
> > I finally got around to refreshing the patch(es) so here goes.
> >
> > These patches introduce VM_PINNED infrastructure, vma tracking of persistent
> > 'pinned' page ranges. Pinned is anything that has a fixed phys address (as
> > required for say IO DMA engines) and thus cannot use the weaker VM_LOCKED. One
> > popular way to pin pages is through get_user_pages() but that not nessecarily
> > the only way.
> 
> Lol, this looks like resurrection of VM_RESERVED which I've removed
> not so long time ago.

Not sure what VM_RESERVED did, but there might be a similarity.

> Maybe single-bit state isn't flexible enought?

Not sure what you mean, the one bit is perfectly fine for what I want it
to do.

> This supposed to supports pinning only by one user and only in its own mm?

Pretty much, that's adequate for all users I'm aware of and mirrors the
mlock semantics.

> This might be done as extension of existing memory-policy engine.
> It allows to keep vm_area_struct slim in normal cases and change
> behaviour when needed.
> memory-policy might hold reference-counter of "pinners", track
> ownership and so on.

That all sounds like raping the mempolicy code and massive over
engineering.

--
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/