linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before

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: <CALCETrXYkbuJJnDv9ijfT+5tLQ2FOvvN1Ugoh5NwOy+zHp9HXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Nov 2020 09:55:37 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode

On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:02 AM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
>
> And get rid of the generic sync_core_before_usermode facility. This is
> functionally a no-op in the core scheduler code, but it also catches
>
> This helper is the wrong way around I think. The idea that membarrier
> state requires a core sync before returning to user is the easy one
> that does not need hiding behind membarrier calls. The gap in core
> synchronization due to x86's sysret/sysexit and lazy tlb mode, is the
> tricky detail that is better put in x86 lazy tlb code.
>
> Consider if an arch did not synchronize core in switch_mm either, then
> membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode would be in the wrong place
> but arch specific mmu context functions would still be the right place.
> There is also a exit_lazy_tlb case that is not covered by this call, which
> could be a bugs (kthread use mm the membarrier process's mm then context
> switch back to the process without switching mm or lazy mm switch).
>
> This makes lazy tlb code a bit more modular.

I have a couple of membarrier fixes that I want to send out today or
tomorrow, and they might eliminate the need for this patch.  Let me
think about this a little bit.  I'll cc you.  The existing code is way
to subtle and the comments are far too confusing for me to be quickly
confident about any of my conclusions :)