linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 06/30] csky: Cache and TLB routines

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: <20180927111959.GA20967@guoren-Inspiron-7460>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:19:59 +0800
From:   Guo Ren <ren_guo@...ky.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jason@...edaemon.net,
        marc.zyngier@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        c-sky_gcc_upstream@...ky.com, gnu-csky@...tor.com,
        green.hu@...il.com, palmer@...ive.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 06/30] csky: Cache and TLB routines

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:01:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:11:42PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 09:08:59AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > That's not what I meant; I meant you need something like:
> > > 
> > > #define flush_cache_range(vma, start, end) cache_wbinv_range(start, end)
> > If you remove the tlb_start_vma in my tlb.h, I want to use cache_wbinv_all() is
> > more safe. And I'll improve it in future.
> > 
> > My cache_wbinv_range(start, end) won't care vma->mm's asid and they just use current
> > asid in mmu reg. If current_mm != vma->mm, then flush_cache_range will be broken.
> > Perhaps, I need improve flush_cache_range first ...
> 
> Ah, ok. In that case I'll leave it to you to either use
> cache_wbinv_all() or improve the range flush. My only request would to
> stick on a comment to explain the reason you're not using
> cache_wbinv_range() if you choose to use cache_wbinv_all() for
> flush_cache_range().
Ok, the comment is necessary and I'll do it in next patchset.

Best Regards
 Guo Ren