linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: soft_dirty: userfaultfd: introduce wrprotect_tlb_flush

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: <CAHk-=whe4ae4CWVf+MiMs_1x9RWVPOLKuAQB8GA0XUk1aG=YZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:30:29 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: soft_dirty: userfaultfd: introduce wrprotect_tlb_flush_pending

On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:48 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> It certainly looks simple and correct to me, although it means we're now
> taking the mmap sem for write in the case where we only want to clear the
> access flag, which should be fine with the thing only held for read, no?

When I was looking at that code, I was thinking that the whole
function should be split up to get rid of some of the indentation and
the "goto out_mm".

And yes, it would probably be good to split up up even more than that
"initial mm lookup and error handling", and have an actual case
statement for the different clear_ref 'type' cases.

And then it would be fairly simple and clean to say "this case only
needs the mmap_sem for read, that case needs it for write".

So I don't disagree, but I think it should be a separate patch - if it
even matters. Is this strange /proc case something that is even
commonly done?

            Linus