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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 08:57:22 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> Cc: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, peterx@...hat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] vfio/pci: Use vfio_device_unmap_mapping_range() On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 09:51:07AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 02:17:45PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote: > > > Now that this is simplified so much, I wonder if we can drop the > > > memory_lock and just use the dev_set->lock? > > > > > > That avoids the whole down_write_trylock thing and makes it much more > > > understandable? > > > > Hmm, that would make this case a lot easier, but using a mutex, > > potentially shared across multiple devices, taken on every non-mmap > > read/write doesn't really feel like a good trade-off when we're > > currently using a per device rwsem to retain concurrency here. Thanks, > > Using a per-set percpu_rw_semaphore might be a good plan here. Probably > makes sense to do that incrementally after this change, though. I'm not sure there is a real performance win to chase here? Doesn't this only protect mmap against reset? The mmap isn't performance sensitive, right? If this really needs extra optimization adding a rwsem to the devset and using that across the whole set would surely be sufficient. Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists