linux-kernel - Re: mm: Question about the use of 'accessed' flags and pte

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: <ed3d1e19-b18b-d10e-2c86-0fb7ce3a431d@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:52:07 +0200
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: mm: Question about the use of 'accessed' flags and pte_young()
 helper

On 10/8/20 11:49 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> In a 10 years old commit
> (https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/d069cb4373fe0d451357c4d3769623a7564dfa9f), powerpc 8xx has
> made the handling of PTE accessed bit conditional to CONFIG_SWAP.
> Since then, this has been extended to some other powerpc variants.
> 
> That commit means that when CONFIG_SWAP is not selected, the accessed bit is not set by SW TLB miss
> handlers, leading to pte_young() returning garbage, or should I say possibly returning false
> allthough a page has been accessed since its access flag was reset.
> 
> Looking at various mm/ places, pte_young() is used independent of CONFIG_SWAP
> 
> Is it still valid the not manage accessed flags when CONFIG_SWAP is not selected ?

AFAIK it's wrong, reclaim needs it to detect accessed pages on inactive list, 
via page_referenced(), including file pages (page cache) where CONFIG_SWAP plays 
no role. Maybe it was different 10 years ago.

> If yes, should pte_young() always return true in that case ?

It should best work as intended. If not possible, true is maybe better, as false 
will lead to inactive file list thrashing.

> While we are at it, I'm wondering whether powerpc should redefine arch_faults_on_old_pte()
> On some variants of powerpc, accessed flag is managed by HW. On others, it is managed by SW TLB miss
> handlers via page fault handling.
> 
> Thanks
> Christophe
>