linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/11] asm-generic/tlb: Provide a comment

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:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:57:38 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:     will.deacon@....com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        heiko.carstens@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 01/11] asm-generic/tlb: Provide a comment

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:30:14PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:

> > + * The mmu_gather data structure is used by the mm code to implement the
> > + * correct and efficient ordering of freeing pages and TLB invalidations.
> > + *
> > + * This correct ordering is:
> > + *
> > + *  1) unhook page
> > + *  2) TLB invalidate page
> > + *  3) free page
> > + *
> > + * That is, we must never free a page before we have ensured there are no live
> > + * translations left to it. Otherwise it might be possible to observe (or
> > + * worse, change) the page content after it has been reused.
> > + *
> 
> This first comment already includes the reason why s390 is probably better off
> with its own mmu-gather implementation. It depends on the situation if we have
> 
> 1) unhook the page and do a TLB flush at the same time
> 2) free page
> 
> or
> 
> 1) unhook page
> 2) free page
> 3) final TLB flush of the whole mm

that's the fullmm case, right?

> A variant of the second order we had in the past is to do the mm TLB flush first,
> then the unhooks and frees of the individual pages. The are some tricky corners
> switching between the two variants, see finish_arch_post_lock_switch.
> 
> The point is: we *never* have the order 1) unhook, 2) TLB invalidate, 3) free.
> If there is concurrency due to a multi-threaded application we have to do the
> unhook of the page-table entry and the TLB flush with a single instruction.

You can still get the thing you want if for !fullmm you have a no-op
tlb_flush() implementation, assuming your arch page-table frobbing thing
has the required TLB flush in.

Note that that's not utterly unlike how the PowerPC/Sparc hash things
work, they clear and invalidate entries different from others and don't
use the mmu_gather tlb-flush.