[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <468bd12c-7b10-0710-7f75-9527c8953b73@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:47:00 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PTI v2 6/6] x86/pti: Put the LDT in its own PGD if PTI is
on
On 12/11/2017 11:39 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I thought there would be a "fast path" where we just use the normal
>> clear_LDT() LDT from the cpu_entry_area and don't have to do any of
>> this, but I'm missing where that happens. Do we need a check in
>> (un)map_ldt_struct() for !mm->context.ldt?
> I'm confused.
>
> if (unlikely(ldt)) {
> do something slowish;
> } else {
> clear_LD();
> }
I was looking at the map/unmap paths. It looks to me like the cases
where there is map/unmap overhead, we *are* doing checking against
mm->context.ldt. It just wasn't visible from the patch context.
In any case, it would be really nice to call that out if you revise
these in the patch description: none of these LDT acrobatics are used in
the common case. Virtually every process uses the !ldt paths which
don't do any of this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists