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:   Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:55:27 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        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 08/27/2017 05:48 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> +	/* Transparent huge pages are not supported. */
>> +	if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)))
>> +		goto out_walk;
> That's looks like a blocker to me.
> 
> Is there any problem with making it supported (besides plain coding)?

IIUC we would have to reattempt once for each PMD level fault because
of the lack of a page table entry there. Besides do we want to support
huge pages in general as part of speculative page fault path ? The
number of faults will be very less (256 times lower on POWER and 512
times lower on X86). So is it worth it ? BTW calling hugetlb_fault()
after figuring out the VMA, works correctly inside handle_speculative
_fault() last time I checked.