linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/11] asm-generic/tlb: Provide generic tlb

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 15:09:47 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, npiggin@...il.com,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/11] asm-generic/tlb: Provide generic tlb_flush

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:01 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Provide a generic tlb_flush() implementation that relies on
> flush_tlb_range(). This is a little awkward because flush_tlb_range()
> assumes a VMA for range invalidation, but we no longer have one.
>
> Audit of all flush_tlb_range() implementations shows only vma->vm_mm
> and vma->vm_flags are used, and of the latter only VM_EXEC (I-TLB
> invalidates) and VM_HUGETLB (large TLB invalidate) are used.
>
> Therefore, track VM_EXEC and VM_HUGETLB in two more bits, and create a
> 'fake' VMA.
>
> This allows architectures that have a reasonably efficient
> flush_tlb_range() to not require any additional effort.
[...]
> +#define tlb_flush tlb_flush
> +static inline void tlb_flush(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> +{
> +       if (tlb->fullmm || tlb->need_flush_all) {
> +               flush_tlb_mm(tlb->mm);
> +       } else {
> +               struct vm_area_struct vma = {
> +                       .vm_mm = tlb->mm,
> +                       .vm_flags = tlb->vma_exec ? VM_EXEC    : 0 |
> +                                   tlb->vma_huge ? VM_HUGETLB : 0,

This looks wrong to me. Bitwise OR has higher precedence than the
ternary operator, so I think this code is equivalent to:

.vm_flags = tlb->vma_exec ? VM_EXEC    : (0 | tlb->vma_huge) ? VM_HUGETLB : 0

meaning that executable+huge mappings would only get VM_EXEC, but not
VM_HUGETLB.

> +               };
> +
> +               flush_tlb_range(&vma, tlb->start, tlb->end);
> +       }
>  }
> +#endif