linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] mm: tlb: Pass struct mmu_gather to flush_pmd_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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:00:58 +0800
From:   Zhenyu Ye <yezhenyu2@...wei.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     <mark.rutland@....com>, <will@...nel.org>,
        <catalin.marinas@....com>, <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <npiggin@...il.com>, <arnd@...db.de>,
        <rostedt@...dmis.org>, <maz@...nel.org>, <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        <tglx@...utronix.de>, <yuzhao@...gle.com>, <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        <steven.price@....com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
        <guohanjun@...wei.com>, <corbet@....net>, <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
        <tony.luck@...el.com>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <arm@...nel.org>, <xiexiangyou@...wei.com>,
        <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>, <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        <kuhn.chenqun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] mm: tlb: Pass struct mmu_gather to
 flush_pmd_tlb_range

Hi Peter,

On 2020/4/3 13:14, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 2020/4/3 0:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:24:04PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
>>> Thanks for your detailed explanation.  I notice that you used
>>> `tlb_end_vma` replace `flush_tlb_range`, which will call `tlb_flush`,
>>> then finally call `flush_tlb_range` in generic code.  However, some
>>> architectures define tlb_end_vma|tlb_flush|flush_tlb_range themselves,
>>> so this may cause problems.
>>>
>>> For example, in s390, it defines:
>>>
>>> #define tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma)			do { } while (0)
>>>
>>> And it doesn't define it's own flush_pmd_tlb_range().  So there will be
>>> a mistake if we changed flush_pmd_tlb_range() using tlb_end_vma().
>>>
>>> Is this really a problem or something I understand wrong ?
>>
>> If tlb_end_vma() is a no-op, then tlb_finish_mmu() will do:
>> tlb_flush_mmu() -> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() -> tlb_flush()
>>
>> And s390 has tlb_flush().
>>
>> If tlb_end_vma() is not a no-op and it calls tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(),
>> then tlb_finish_mmu()'s invocation of tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() will
>> terniate early due o no flags set.
>>
>> IOW, it should all just work.
>>
>>
>> FYI the whole tlb_{start,end}_vma() thing is a only needed when the
>> architecture doesn't implement tlb_flush() and instead default to using
>> flush_tlb_range(), at which point we need to provide a 'fake' vma.
>>
>> At the time I audited all architectures and they only look at VM_EXEC
>> (to do $I invalidation) and VM_HUGETLB (for pmd level invalidations),
>> but I forgot which architectures that were.
> 
> Many architectures, such as alpha, arc, arm and so on.
> I really understand why you hate making vma->vm_flags more important for
> tlbi :).
> 
>> But that is all legacy code; eventually we'll get all archs a native
>> tlb_flush() and this can go away.
>>
> 
> Thanks for your reply.  Currently, to enable the TTL feature, extending
> the flush_*tlb_range() may be more convenient.
> I will send a formal PATCH soon.
> 
> Thanks,
> Zhenyu
> 

I had sent [PATCH v1] a few days ago[1].  Do you have time to review
my changes?  Are those changes appropriate?

Waiting for your suggestion.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200403090048.938-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com/

Thanks,
Zhenyu