linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync

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: <20200509092516.GC2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 11:25:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:34:07PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> thanks for reviewing this!
> 
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:20:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The only concern I have is the pgd_lock lock hold times.
> > 
> > By not doing on-demand faults anymore, and consistently calling
> > sync_global_*(), we iterate that pgd_list thing much more often than
> > before if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Should not be a problem, from what I have seen this function is not
> called often on x86-64.  The vmalloc area needs to be synchronized at
> the top-level there, which is by now P4D (with 4-level paging). And the
> vmalloc area takes 64 entries, when all of them are populated the
> function will not be called again.

Right; it's just that the moment you do trigger it, it'll iterate that
pgd_list and that is potentially huge. Then again, that's not a new
problem.

I suppose we can deal with it if/when it becomes an actual problem.

I had a quick look and I think it might be possible to make it an RCU
managed list. We'd have to remove the pgd_list entry in
put_task_struct_rcu_user(). Then we can play games in sync_global_*()
and use RCU iteration. New tasks (which can be missed in the RCU
iteration) will already have a full clone of the PGD anyway.

But like said, something for later I suppose.