linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/mmu_notifier: avoid double notification when it is useless

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, 3 Oct 2017 17:43:47 -0700
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Alistair Popple <alistair@...ple.id.au>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmu_notifier: avoid double notification when it is
 useless

Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:42:15AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
>> I'd like some more explanation about the inner working of "that new
>> user" as per comment above.
>> 
>> It would be enough to drop mmu_notifier_invalidate_range from above
>> without adding it to the filebacked case. The above gives higher prio
>> to the hypothetical and uncertain future case, than to the current
>> real filebacked case that doesn't need ->invalidate_range inside the
>> PT lock, or do you see something that might already need such
>> ->invalidate_range?
> 
> No i don't see any new user today that might need such invalidate but
> i was trying to be extra cautious as i have a tendency to assume that
> someone might do a patch that use try_to_unmap() without going through
> all the comments in the function and thus possibly using it in a an
> unexpected way from mmu_notifier callback point of view. I am fine
> with putting the burden on new user to get it right and adding an
> extra warning in the function description to try to warn people in a
> sensible way.

I must be missing something. After the PTE is changed, but before the
secondary TLB notification/invalidation - What prevents another thread from
changing the mappings (e.g., using munmap/mmap), and setting a new page
at that PTE?

Wouldn’t it end with the page being mapped without a secondary TLB flush in
between?

Nadav