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: <3276DF39-328E-497A-9EF4-A2A348C19D92@vmware.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Jul 2022 17:09:59 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
CC:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        LKML <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 ML <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 Jul 8, 2022, at 10:01 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:

> ⚠ External Email
> 
> On 7/8/22 09:54, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Since the bug was not during MADV_DONTNEED there is no reason for the
>> results to be any different.
>> 
>> Famous last words?
> 
> Considering that your patch broke the kernel a way that surprised us
> all, I think caution is warranted.  Re-running a microbenchmark that
> takes five minutes and stresses things a bit is the least you can do, I
> think.

I will send it later today. I was just pointing that the failing code-path
is different than the one I measured.