linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V15] mm/debug: Add tests validating architecture page table helpers

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 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:   Sat, 7 Mar 2020 08:05:09 +0100
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15] mm/debug: Add tests validating architecture page
 table helpers



Le 07/03/2020 à 01:56, Anshuman Khandual a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 03/07/2020 06:04 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2020, at 7:03 PM, Anshuman Khandual <Anshuman.Khandual@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, set_pte_at() function is not preferred here for these tests. The idea
>>> is to avoid or atleast minimize TLB/cache flushes triggered from these sort
>>> of 'static' tests. set_pte_at() is platform provided and could/might trigger
>>> these flushes or some other platform specific synchronization stuff. Just
>>
>> Why is that important for this debugging option?
> 
> Primarily reason is to avoid TLB/cache flush instructions on the system
> during these tests that only involve transforming different page table
> level entries through helpers. Unless really necessary, why should it
> emit any TLB/cache flush instructions ?

What's the problem with thoses flushes ?

> 
>>
>>> wondering is there specific reason with respect to the soft lock up problem
>>> making it necessary to use set_pte_at() rather than a simple WRITE_ONCE() ?
>>
>> Looks at the s390 version of set_pte_at(), it has this comment,
>> vmaddr);
>>
>> /*
>>   * Certain architectures need to do special things when PTEs
>>   * within a page table are directly modified.  Thus, the following
>>   * hook is made available.
>>   */
>>
>> I can only guess that powerpc  could be the same here.
> 
> This comment is present in multiple platforms while defining set_pte_at().
> Is not 'barrier()' here alone good enough ? Else what exactly set_pte_at()
> does as compared to WRITE_ONCE() that avoids the soft lock up, just trying
> to understand.
> 


Argh ! I didn't realise that you were writing directly into the page 
tables. When it works, that's only by chance I guess.

To properly set the page table entries, set_pte_at() has to be used:
- On powerpc 8xx, with 16k pages, the page table entry must be copied 
four times. set_pte_at() does it, WRITE_ONCE() doesn't.
- On powerpc book3s/32 (hash MMU), the flag _PAGE_HASHPTE must be 
preserved among writes. set_pte_at() preserves it, WRITE_ONCE() doesn't.

set_pte_at() also does a few other mandatory things, like calling 
pte_mkpte()

So, the WRITE_ONCE() must definitely become a set_pte_at()

Christophe