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, 9 May 2020 18:11:57 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, 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 Sat, May 09, 2020 at 11:25:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:34:07PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > 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.

One of the things on my long-term todo list is to replace mm_struct.mmlist
with an XArray containing all mm_structs.  Then we can use one mark
to indicate maybe-swapped and another mark to indicate ... whatever it
is pgd_list indicates.  Iterating an XArray (whether the entire thing
or with marks) is RCU-safe and faster than iterating a linked list,
so this should solve the problem?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists