linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 14/20] mm: Provide speculative fault infrastructure

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]

Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:18:25 +0200
From:   Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/20] mm: Provide speculative fault infrastructure

On 29/08/2017 14:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> On 27/08/2017 02:18, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (unlikely(!vma->anon_vma))
>>>> +		goto unlock;
>>>
>>> It deserves a comment.
>>
>> You're right I'll add it in the next version.
>> For the record, the root cause is that __anon_vma_prepare() requires the
>> mmap_sem to be held because vm_next and vm_prev must be safe.
> 
> But should that test not be:
> 
> 	if (unlikely(vma_is_anonymous(vma) && !vma->anon_vma))
> 		goto unlock;
> 
> Because !anon vmas will never have ->anon_vma set and you don't want to
> exclude those.

Yes in the case we later allow non anonymous vmas to be handled.
Currently only anonymous vmas are supported so the check is good enough,
isn't it ?