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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CALYGNiNCp5ShyKLAQi_cht_-sPt79Zxzj=Q=VSzqCvdnsCE5ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 May 2014 15:11:36 +0400
From:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 2:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:29:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:49:08AM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>> > Another suggestion. VM_RESERVED is stronger than VM_LOCKED and extends
>> > its functionality.
>> > Maybe it's easier to add VM_DONTMIGRATE and use it together with VM_LOCKED.
>> > This will make accounting easier. No?
>>
>> I prefer the PINNED name because the not being able to migrate is only
>> one of the desired effects of it, not the primary effect. We're really
>> looking to keep physical pages in place and preserve mappings.

Ah, I just mixed it up.

>>
>> The -rt people for example really want to avoid faults (even minor
>> faults), and DONTMIGRATE would still allow unmapping.
>>
>> Maybe always setting VM_PINNED and VM_LOCKED together is easier, I
>> hadn't considered that. The first thing that came to mind is that that
>> might make the fork() semantics difficult, but maybe it works out.
>>
>> And while we're on the subject, my patch preserves PINNED over fork()
>> but maybe we don't actually need that either.
>
> So pinned_vm is userspace exposed, which means we have to maintain the
> individual counts, and doing the fully orthogonal accounting is 'easier'
> than trying to get the boundary cases right.
>
> That is, if we have a program that does mlockall() and then does the IB
> ioctl() to 'pin' a region, we'd have to make mm_mpin() do munlock()
> after it splits the vma, and then do the pinned accounting.
>
> Also, we'll have lost the LOCKED state and unless MCL_FUTURE was used,
> we don't know what to restore the vma to on mm_munpin().
>
> So while the accounting looks tricky, it has simpler semantics.

What if VM_PINNED will require VM_LOCKED?
I.e. user must mlock it before pining and cannot munlock vma while it's pinned.
--
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/