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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:57:18 +0200
From:	Joerg Roedel <>
To:	Jesse Barnes <>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Rik van Riel <>,
	Hugh Dickins <>, Mel Gorman <>,
	Johannes Weiner <>,
	Jerome Glisse <>,,,,,,,
	David Woodhouse <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mmu_notifier: Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range()

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:42:13PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:38:06 +0200
> Joerg Roedel <> wrote:
> > I though about removing the need for invalidate_range_end too when
> > writing the patches, and possible solutions are
> > 
> > 	1) Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() to all places where
> > 	   start/end is called too. This might add some unnecessary
> > 	   overhead.
> > 
> > 	2) Call the invalidate_range() call-back from the
> > 	   mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end too.
> > 
> > 	3) Just let the user register the same function for
> > 	   invalidate_range and invalidate_range_end
> > 
> > I though that option 1) adds overhead that is not needed (but it might
> > not be too bad, the overhead is an additional iteration over the
> > mmu_notifer list when there are no call-backs registered).
> > 
> > Option 2) might also be overhead if a user registers different functions
> > for invalidate_range() and invalidate_range_end(). In the end I came to
> > the conclusion that option 3) is the best one from an overhead POV.
> > 
> > But probably targeting better usability with one of the other options is
> > a better choice? I am open for thoughts and suggestions on that.
> Making the _end callback just do another TLB flush is fine too, but it
> would be nice to have the consistency of (1).  I can live with either
> though, as long as the callbacks are well documented.

You are right, having this consistency would be good. The more I think
about it, the more it makes sense to go with option 2). Option 1) would
mean that invalidate_range is explicitly called right before
invalidate_range_end at some places. Doing this implicitly like in
option 2) is cleaner and less error-prone. And the list of mmu_notifiers
needs only be traversed once in invalidate_range_end(), so additional
overhead is minimal. I'll update patch 3 for this, unless there are
other opinions.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists