linux-kernel - Re: TLB flushes on fixmap changes

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: <20180826090958.GT24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sun, 26 Aug 2018 11:09:58 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        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: TLB flushes on fixmap changes

On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 09:21:22PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I just re-read text_poke().  It's, um, horrible.  Not only is the
> implementation overcomplicated and probably buggy, but it's SLOOOOOW.
> It's totally the wrong API -- poking one instruction at a time
> basically can't be efficient on x86.  The API should either poke lots
> of instructions at once or should be text_poke_begin(); ...;
> text_poke_end();.

I don't think anybody ever cared about performance here. Only
correctness. That whole text_poke_bp() thing is entirely tricky.

FWIW, before text_poke_bp(), text_poke() would only be used from
stop_machine, so all the other CPUs would be stuck busy-waiting with
IRQs disabled. These days, yeah, that's lots more dodgy, but yes
text_mutex should be serializing all that.

And on that, I so hate comments like: "must be called under foo_mutex",
we have lockdep_assert_held() for that.