[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170920073426.GA26073@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 09:34:26 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Part1 PATCH v4 15/17] percpu: introduce
DEFINE_PER_CPU_UNENCRYPTED
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 08:50:20AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> "..shared_aligned" section does not start and end with page-size alignment.
Nowhere in the code there's a comment saying: "This percpu section really must
be page-size aligned because <reasons>." You need to be more verbose
with requirements like that.
Also, you're ending up needing a whole page per-CPU for those variables.
And now with the alignment before and after, you have worst-case two
pages fragmentation of percpu memory and percpu memory is a rather
limited resource AFAIR.
If only there were a alloc_percpu_page()...
> Since the C-bit works on PAGE_SIZE alignment hence the "..unencrypted" section
Btw, call that section "..decrypted" and everywhere do
s/unencrypted/decrypted/g.
> starts and ends with page-size alignment. The closest I can find is
> "..page_aligned" but again it does not end with page-size alignment.
>
> Additionally, since we clear the C-bit from unencrypted section hence we
> should avoid overloading the existing section -- we don't want to expose more
> than we wish.
Add that to the comment too.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists