linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove redundant lru_add

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: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:45:54 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jianfeng Wang <jianfeng.w.wang@...cle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove redundant lru_add_drain() prior to
 unmapping pages

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 12:48:10AM -0800, Jianfeng Wang wrote:
> On 12/14/23 3:00 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Shouldn't we put this in __tlb_gather_mmu() which already has the
> > CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_NO_GATHER ifdefs?  That would presuambly help with, eg
> > zap_page_range_single() too.
> 
> After looking at different use cases of tlb_gather_mmu(), I feel it is
> questionable to move lru_add_drain() into __tlb_gather_mmu(). There are
> two use cases of tlb_gather_mmu(): one for unmapping and releasing pages
> (e.g., the two cases in mmap.c); the other one is to update page table
> entries and flush TLB without releasing pages (e.g., together with
> mprotect_fixup()). For the latter use case, it is reasonable to not call
> lru_add_drain() prior to or within tlb_gather_mmu().
> 
> Of course, we may update tlb_gather_mmu()'s API to take this into account.
> For example, we can have tlb_gather_mmu_for_release() for the first case
> and tlb_gather_mmu() for the latter. I'd like to have your opinion on this.

Yes, I like this idea.  You're right that there's no need to drain the
lru lists for the other use case, so it makes sense to have two APIs.