linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] mm: Add PG

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:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 09:57:50 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] mm: Add PG_zero support

On 24.04.20 09:55, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 4/24/20 9:28 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.04.20 02:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 05:37:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:09:00 +0200 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>>>>> Heh, I was quite sure that this is not the first time background zeroing is
>>>>> proposed, so I went to google for it... and found that one BSD kernel actually
>>>>> removed this functionality in 2016 [1] and this was one of the reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git/commitdiff/afd2da4dc9056ea79cdf15e8a9386a3d3998f33e
>>>>
>>>> Interesting.
>>>>
>>>> However this:
>>>>
>>>>   - Pre-zeroing a page leads to a cold-cache case on-use, forcing the fault
>>>>     source (e.g. a userland program) to actually get the data from main
>>>>     memory in its likely immediate use of the faulted page, reducing
>>>>     performance.
>>>>
>>>> implies that BSD was zeroing with non-temporal stores which bypass the
>>>> CPU cache.  And which presumably invalidate any part of the target
>>>> memory which was already in cache.  We wouldn't do it that way so
>>>> perhaps the results would differ.
>>>
>>> Or just that the page was zeroed far enough in advance that it fell out
>>> of cache naturally.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>>> I know Arjan looked at zeroing on free instead of zeroing on alloc,
>>> and that didn't get merged (or even submitted afaik), so presumably the
>>> results weren't good.
>>
>> We do have INIT_ON_FREE_DEFAULT_ON
>>
>> via
>>
>> commit 6471384af2a6530696fc0203bafe4de41a23c9ef
>> Author: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
>> Date:   Thu Jul 11 20:59:19 2019 -0700
>>
>>     mm: security: introduce init_on_alloc=1 and init_on_free=1 boot options
>>
>> which seems to do exactly that (although for a different use case)
> 
> Yeah, except the security use case wants to do that immediately, while the
> proposal here is a background thread.
> 

Yes I know, this was just a comment regarding "Arjan looked at zeroing
on free instead of zeroing on alloc".

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb