linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/huge_memory.c: update tlb entry if pmd is changed

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]

Message-Id: <20200806213503.58f40af5f2dd99e386b0f6cb@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:35:03 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Daniel Silsby <dansilsby@...il.com>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/huge_memory.c: update tlb entry if pmd is
 changed

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:43:06 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 6/25/20 10:16 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 6/25/20 5:01 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 6/24/20 2:26 AM, Bibo Mao wrote:
> >>>> When set_pmd_at is called in function do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page,
> >>>> new tlb entry can be added by software on MIPS platform.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here add update_mmu_cache_pmd when pmd entry is set, and
> >>>> update_mmu_cache_pmd is defined as empty excepts arc/mips platform.
> >>>> This patch has no negative effect on other platforms except arc/mips
> >>>> system.
> >>>
> >>> I am confused by this comment.  It appears that update_mmu_cache_pmd
> >>> is defined as non-empty on arc, mips, powerpc and sparc architectures.
> >>> Am I missing something?
> >>>
> >>> If those architectures do provide update_mmu_cache_pmd, then the previous
> >>> patch and this one now call update_mmu_cache_pmd with the actual faulting
> >>> address instead of the huge page aligned address.  This was intentional
> >>> for mips.  However, are there any potential issues on the other architectures?
> >>> I am no expert in any of those architectures.  arc looks like it could be
> >>> problematic as update_mmu_cache_pmd calls update_mmu_cache and then
> >>> operates on (address & PAGE_MASK).  That could now be different.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Also we added update_mmu_cache_pmd to update a THP entry. That could be
> >> different from a hugetlb entry on some architectures. If we need to do
> >> hugetlb equivalent for update_mmu_cache, we should add a different
> >> function.
> > 
> > I do not know the mips architecture well enough or if the motivation for
> > this patch was based on THP or hugetlb pages.  However, it will change
> > the address passed to update_mmu_cache_pmd from huge page aligned to the
> > actual faulting address.  Will such a change in the passed address impact
> > the powerpc update_mmu_cache_pmd routine?
> > 
> 
> Right now powerpc update_mmu_cache_pmd() is a dummy function. But I 
> agree we should audit arch to make sure such a change can work with 
> architectures. My comment was related to the fact that mmu cache update 
> w.r.t THP and hugetlb can be different on some platforms. So we may
> want to avoid using the same function for both.

So I'll assume that this patch is stalled until such an audit has taken
place?