linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/tlb: ignore f->new_tlb

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: <2e4d0193-1c5a-ec30-53a1-8009370cde36@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:54:07 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/tlb: ignore f->new_tlb_gen when zero

On 7/8/22 10:04, Nadav Amit wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2022, at 7:49 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 7/7/22 17:30, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> You might want to fix the clock on the system from which you sent this.
>> I was really scratching my head trying to figure out how you got this
>> patch out before Hugh's bug report.
>>
>>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>>>
>>> Commit aa44284960d5 ("x86/mm/tlb: Avoid reading mm_tlb_gen when
>>> possible") introduced an optimization of skipping the flush if the TLB
>>> generation that is flushed (as provided in flush_tlb_info) was already
>>> flushed.
>>>
>>> However, arch_tlbbatch_flush() does not provide any generation in
>>> flush_tlb_info. As a result, try_to_unmap_one() would not perform any
>>> TLB flushes.
>>>
>>> Fix it by checking whether f->new_tlb_gen is nonzero. Zero value is
>>> anyhow is an invalid generation value.
>>
>> It is, but the check below uses 'f->end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL' as the marker
>> for f->new_tlb_gen being invalid.  Being consistent seems like a good
>> idea on this stuff.
> 
> If we get a request to do a flush, regardless whether full or partial,
> that logically we have already done, there is not reason to do it.
> 
> I therefore do not see a reason to look on f->end. I think that looking
> at the generation is very intuitive. If you want, I can add a constant
> such as TLB_GENERATION_INVALID.

That's a good point.

But, _my_ point was that there was only really one read site of
f->new_tlb_gen in flush_tlb_func().  That site is guarded by the "f->end
!= TLB_FLUSH_ALL" check which prevented it from making the same error
that your patch did.

Whatever we do, it would be nice to have a *single* way to check for
"does f->new_tlb_gen have an actual, valid bit of tlb gen data in it?"

Using something like TLB_GENERATION_INVALID seems reasonable to me.