linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] x86/mm: Track the TLB's tlb

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: <CALCETrX+B1Xa=0ZjYUNi+aApKPQerVqOt42bgGeNadaZc-c3hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2017 08:46:40 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/11] x86/mm: Track the TLB's tlb_gen and update the
 flushing algorithm

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:08:38AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Yes, I agree it's confusing.  There really are three numbers.  Those
>> numbers are: the latest generation, the generation that this CPU has
>> caught up to, and the generation that the requester of the flush we're
>> currently handling has asked us to catch up to.  I don't see a way to
>> reduce the complexity.
>
> Yeah, can you pls put that clarification what what is, over it. It
> explains it nicely what the check is supposed to do.

Done.  I've tried to improve a bunch of the comments in this function.

>
>> >> The flush IPI hits after a switch_mm_irqs_off() call notices the
>> >> change from 1 to 2. switch_mm_irqs_off() will do a full flush and
>> >> increment the local tlb_gen to 2, and the IPI handler for the partial
>> >> flush will see local_tlb_gen == mm_tlb_gen - 1 (because local_tlb_gen
>> >> == 2 and mm_tlb_gen == 3) and do a partial flush.
>> >
>> > Why, the 2->3 flush has f->end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL.
>> >
>> > That's why you have this thing in addition to the tlb_gen.
>>
>> Yes.  The idea is that we only do remote partial flushes when it's
>> 100% obvious that it's safe.
>
> So why wouldn't my simplified suggestion work then?
>
>         if (f->end != TLB_FLUSH_ALL &&
>              mm_tlb_gen == local_tlb_gen + 1)
>
> 1->2 is a partial flush - gets promoted to a full one
> 2->3 is a full flush - it will get executed as one due to the f->end setting to
> TLB_FLUSH_ALL.

This could still fail in some cases, I think.  Suppose 1->2 is a
partial flush and 2->3 is a full flush.  We could have this order of
events:

 - CPU 1: Partial flush.  Increase context.tlb_gen to 2 and send IPI.
 - CPU 0: switch_mm(), observe mm_tlb_gen == 2, set local_tlb_gen to 2.
 - CPU 2: Full flush.  Increase context.tlb_gen to 3 and send IPI.
 - CPU 0: Receive partial flush IPI.  mm_tlb_gen == 2 and
local_tlb_gen == 3.  Do __flush_tlb_single() and set local_tlb_gen to
3.

Our invariant is now broken: CPU 0's percpu tlb_gen is now ahead of
its actual TLB state.

 - CPU 0: Receive full flush IPI and skip the flush.  Oops.

I think my condition makes it clear that the invariants we need hold
no matter it.

>
>> It could be converted to two full flushes or to just one, I think,
>> depending on what order everything happens in.
>
> Right. One flush at the right time would be optimal.
>
>> But this approach of using three separate tlb_gen values seems to
>> cover all the bases, and I don't think it's *that* bad.
>
> Sure.
>
> As I said in IRC, let's document that complexity then so that when we
> stumble over it in the future, we at least know why it was done this
> way.

I've given it a try.  Hopefully v4 is more clear.