linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/37] x86/mm: attempt speculative mm faults first

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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:18:23 -0700
From:   Michel Lespinasse <michel@...pinasse.org>
To:     Michel Lespinasse <michel@...pinasse.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>,
        Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/37] x86/mm: attempt speculative mm faults first

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 01:14:53PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:48:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 06:44:36PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > @@ -1219,6 +1219,8 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > >  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > >  	vm_fault_t fault;
> > >  	unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_DEFAULT;
> > > +	struct vm_area_struct pvma;
> > 
> > That's 200 bytes on-stack... I suppose that's just about acceptible, but
> > perhaps we need a comment in struct vm_area_struct to make people aware
> > this things lives on-stack and size really is an issue now.
> 
> Right, I agree that having the vma copy on-stack is not ideal.
> 
> I think what really should be done, is to copy just the attributes of
> the vma that will be needed during the page fault. Things like vm_mm,
> vm_page_prot, vm_flags, vm_ops, vm_pgoff, vm_file, vm_private_data,
> vm_policy. We definitely do not need rbtree and rmap fields such as
> vm_prev, vm_next, vm_rb, rb_subtree_gap, shared, anon_vma_chain etc...
> 
> The reason I did things this way, is because changing the entire fault
> handler to use attributes stored in struct vm_fault, rather than in
> the original vma, would be quite intrusive. I think it would be a
> reasonable step to consider once there is agreement on the rest of the
> speculative fault patch set, but it's practical doing it before then.

I meant it's NOT practical using attributes rather than a vma copy
until there is sufficient agreement to merge the patchset.