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:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:29:51 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <>
To:     Will Deacon <>
Cc:     Yu Zhao <>,
        Laurent Dufour <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Vinayak Menon <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Xu <>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <>,
        linux-mm <>,
        lkml <>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <>,
        Mike Kravetz <>,
        Mike Rapoport <>,
        stable <>,
        Minchan Kim <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect

> On Jan 12, 2021, at 1:43 PM, Will Deacon <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 12:38:34PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 2021, at 11:56 AM, Yu Zhao <> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:15:43AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>> I will send an RFC soon for per-table deferred TLB flushes tracking.
>>>> The basic idea is to save a generation in the page-struct that tracks
>>>> when deferred PTE change took place, and track whenever a TLB flush
>>>> completed. In addition, other users - such as mprotect - would use
>>>> the tlb_gather interface.
>>>> Unfortunately, due to limited space in page-struct this would only
>>>> be possible for 64-bit (and my implementation is only for x86-64).
>>> I don't want to discourage you but I don't think this would end up
>>> well. PPC doesn't necessarily follow one-page-struct-per-table rule,
>>> and I've run into problems with this before while trying to do
>>> something similar.
>> Discourage, discourage. Better now than later.
>> It will be relatively easy to extend the scheme to be per-VMA instead of
>> per-table for architectures that prefer it this way. It does require
>> TLB-generation tracking though, which Andy only implemented for x86, so I
>> will focus on x86-64 right now.
> Can you remind me of what we're missing on arm64 in this area, please? I'm
> happy to help get this up and running once you have something I can build
> on.

Let me first finish making something that we can use as a basis for a
discussion. I do not waste your time before I have something ready.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists