linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 11/12] x86, mpx: cleanup unused bound tables

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1411041726140.4245@nanos>
Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2014 18:02:50 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
cc:	Ren Qiaowei <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 11/12] x86, mpx: cleanup unused bound tables

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/03/2014 01:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> > That's not really true. You can evaluate that information with
> > mmap_sem held for read as well. Nothing can change the mappings until
> > you drop it. So you could do:
> > 
> >    down_write(mm->bd_sem);
> >    down_read(mm->mmap_sem;
> >    evaluate_size_of_shm_to_unmap();
> >    clear_bounds_directory_entries();
> >    up_read(mm->mmap_sem);
> >    do_the_real_shm_unmap();
> >    up_write(mm->bd_sem);
> > 
> > That should still be covered by the above scheme.
> 
> Yep, that'll work.  It just means rewriting the shmdt()/mremap() code to
> do a "dry run" of sorts.

Right. So either that or we hold bd_sem write locked accross all write
locked mmap_sem sections. Dunno, which solution is prettier :)

> Do you have any concerns about adding another mutex to these paths?

You mean bd_sem? I don't think its an issue. You need to get mmap_sem
for write as well. So 

> munmap() isn't as hot of a path as the allocation side, but it does
> worry me a bit that we're going to perturb some workloads.  We might
> need to find a way to optimize out the bd_sem activity on processes that
> never used MPX.

I think using mm->bd_addr as a conditional for the bd_sem/mpx activity
is good enough. You just need to make sure that you store the result
of the starting conditional and use it for the closing one as well.

   mpx = mpx_pre_unmap(mm);
       {
	  if (!kernel_managing_bounds_tables(mm)
       	     return 0;
	  down_write(mm->bd_sem);
	  ...
	  return 1;
       }

   unmap();

   mxp_post_unmap(mm, mpx);
       {
          if (mpx) {
	     ....
	     up_write(mm->bd_sem);
       }

So this serializes nicely with the bd_sem protected write to
mm->bd_addr. There is a race there, but I don't think it matters. The
worst thing what can happen is a stale bound table.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/