linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/ksm: reduce the flush action for ksm merging page

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: <7c6ae2a3-8ec3-4c9b-81c3-125f6973f0f3@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 12:45:48 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alex Shi <seakeel@...il.com>, alexs@...nel.org,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com,
 willy@...radead.org, aarcange@...hat.com, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
 hughd@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm/ksm: reduce the flush action for ksm merging
 page

On 04.06.24 12:26, Alex Shi wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/4/24 4:07 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 04.06.24 06:24, alexs@...nel.org wrote:
>>> From: "Alex Shi (tencent)" <alexs@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> We can put off the flush action util a merging is realy coming. That
>>> could reduce some unmerge page flushing.
>>> BTW, flushing only do at arm, mips and few other archs.
>>>
>>
>> I'm no expert on that flushing, but I thought we would have to do the flushing before accessing page content -- before calculating the checksum etc.
>>
>> Now you would only do it before the pages_identical() check, but not when calculating the checksum.
>>
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks a lot for comments!
> 
> If calc_checksum() is wrong before pages_idential(), (that's just after page was write_protected, that's a real guarantee for page context secured) pages_identical could recheck and make thing right.
> 

Yes, but you would get more wrong checksums, resulting in more 
unnecessary pages_identical() checks.

That is missing from the description, and why we want to change that 
behavior.

What's the net win?

> And as to 2 flush functions here, I didn't see the guarantee for other writer from any other place. So maybe we should remove these flush action?

"I didn't see the guarantee for other writer from any other place" can 
you rephrase your comment?

If you mean "the process could modify that page concurrently", then you 
are right. But that's different than "the process modified the page in 
the past and we are reading stale content because we missed a flush".

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb