linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/tlb, x86/mm: Support invalidating TLB caches for RCU_TABLE

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]

Message-ID: <20180824084717.GK24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:47:17 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Adin Scannell <ascannell@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/tlb, x86/mm: Support invalidating TLB caches for
 RCU_TABLE_FREE

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 02:39:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> The only problem with this approach is that we've lost track of the granule
> size by the point we get to the tlb_flush(), so we can't adjust the stride of
> the TLB invalidations for huge mappings, which actually works nicely in the
> synchronous case (e.g. we perform a single invalidation for a 2MB mapping,
> rather than iterating over it at a 4k granule).
> 
> One thing we could do is switch to synchronous mode if we detect a change in
> granule (i.e. treat it like a batch failure).

We could use tlb_start_vma() to track that, I think. Shouldn't be too
hard.