linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix regressions from wider use of ZERO

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, 13 Apr 2022 18:41:28 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Mark Hemment <markhemm@...glemail.com>,
        Patrice CHOTARD <patrice.chotard@...s.st.com>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tmpfs: fix regressions from wider use of ZERO_PAGE

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 04:22:21PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 23:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > Either way I'd rather do this optimization in iov_iter_zero rather
> > > than hiding it in tmpfs.
> > 
> > Let's see what others say.  I think we would all prefer clear_user() to be
> > enhanced, and hack around it neither here in tmpfs nor in iov_iter_zero().
> > But that careful work won't get done by magic, nor by me.
> > 
> > And iov_iter_zero() has to deal with a wider range of possibilities,
> > when pulling in cache lines of ZERO_PAGE(0) will be less advantageous,
> > than in tmpfs doing a large dd - the case I'm aiming not to regress here
> > (tmpfs has been copying ZERO_PAGE(0) like this for years).
> 
> We do need something to get 5.18 fixed.  Christoph, do you think we
> should proceed with this patch for 5.18?

Well, let's queue it up then.