linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm_notifiers: Rename invalidate

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: <ZLbSeO+XjSx1W795@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:57:12 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ajd@...ux.ibm.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, fbarrat@...ux.ibm.com,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev, jhubbard@...dia.com, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        nicolinc@...dia.com, npiggin@...il.com, robin.murphy@....com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, will@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        zhi.wang.linux@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm_notifiers: Rename invalidate_range notifier

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 05:56:15PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> index b466172..48c81b9 100644
> --- a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ static inline void tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
>  		return;
>  
>  	tlb_flush(tlb);
> -	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
> +	mmu_notifier_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
>  	__tlb_reset_range(tlb);

Does this compile? I don't see
"mmu_notifier_invalidate_secondary_tlbs" ?

Maybe we don't need to rename this function since you pretty much
remove it in the next patches?

> diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> index 50c0dde..34c5a84 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ mmu_interval_read_begin(struct mmu_interval_notifier *interval_sub)
>  	 *    spin_lock
>  	 *     seq = ++subscriptions->invalidate_seq
>  	 *    spin_unlock
> -	 *     op->invalidate_range():
> +	 *     op->invalidate_secondary_tlbs():

The later patch should delete this stuff from the comment too, we
no longer guarantee this relationship?

> @@ -560,23 +560,23 @@ mn_hlist_invalidate_end(struct mmu_notifier_subscriptions *subscriptions,
>  	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(subscription, &subscriptions->list, hlist,
>  				 srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) {
>  		/*
> -		 * Call invalidate_range here too to avoid the need for the
> -		 * subsystem of having to register an invalidate_range_end
> -		 * call-back when there is invalidate_range already. Usually a
> -		 * subsystem registers either invalidate_range_start()/end() or
> -		 * invalidate_range(), so this will be no additional overhead
> -		 * (besides the pointer check).
> +		 * Subsystems should register either invalidate_secondary_tlbs()
> +		 * or invalidate_range_start()/end() callbacks.
>  		 *
> -		 * We skip call to invalidate_range() if we know it is safe ie
> -		 * call site use mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_only_end() which
> -		 * is safe to do when we know that a call to invalidate_range()
> -		 * already happen under page table lock.
> +		 * We call invalidate_secondary_tlbs() here so that subsystems
> +		 * can use larger range based invalidations. In some cases
> +		 * though invalidate_secondary_tlbs() needs to be called while
> +		 * holding the page table lock. In that case call sites use
> +		 * mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_only_end() and we know it is
> +		 * safe to skip secondary TLB invalidation as it will have
> +		 * already been done.
>  		 */
> -		if (!only_end && subscription->ops->invalidate_range)
> -			subscription->ops->invalidate_range(subscription,
> -							    range->mm,
> -							    range->start,
> -							    range->end);
> +		if (!only_end && subscription->ops->invalidate_secondary_tlbs)
> +			subscription->ops->invalidate_secondary_tlbs(

More doesn't compile, and the comment has the same issue..

But I think the approach in this series looks fine, it is so much
cleaner after we remove all the cruft in patch 4, just look at the
diffstat..

Jason