[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DDFF4AF4-51D2-44F5-8B63-E8454F712EC6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:23:04 -0400
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omiun.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/27] x86/mm: Modify ptep_set_wrprotect and
pmdp_set_wrprotect for _PAGE_DIRTY_SW
at 6:44 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 07/10/2018 03:26 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * On platforms before CET, other threads could race to
>> + * create a RO and _PAGE_DIRTY_HW PMD again. However,
>> + * on CET platforms, this is safe without a TLB flush.
>> + */
>
> If I didn't work for Intel, I'd wonder what the heck CET is and what the
> heck it has to do with _PAGE_DIRTY_HW. I think we need a better comment
> than this. How about:
>
> Some processors can _start_ a write, but end up seeing
> a read-only PTE by the time they get to getting the
> Dirty bit. In this case, they will set the Dirty bit,
> leaving a read-only, Dirty PTE which looks like a Shadow
> Stack PTE.
>
> However, this behavior has been improved and will *not* occur on
> processors supporting Shadow Stacks. Without this guarantee, a
> transition to a non-present PTE and flush the TLB would be
> needed.
Interesting. Does that regard the knights landing bug or something more
general?
Will the write succeed or trigger a page-fault in this case?
[ I know it is not related to the patch, but I would appreciate if you share
your knowledge ]
Regards,
Nadav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists