linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] mm: Add test_clear_young_fast

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: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:48:22 -0700
From: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Ankit Agrawal <ankita@...dia.com>, Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>, 
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>, 
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, 
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, 
	Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, 
	Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>, 
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] mm: Add test_clear_young_fast_only MMU notifier

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 11:53 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:49:49PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 09:49:59AM -0700, James Houghton wrote:
> > > > I think consolidating the callbacks is cleanest, like you had it in
> > > > v2. I really wasn't sure about this change honestly, but it was my
> > > > attempt to incorporate feedback like this[3] from v4. I'll consolidate
> > > > the callbacks like you had in v2.
> > >
> > > My strong preference is to have the callers expectations of the
> > > secondary MMU be explicit. Having ->${BLAH}_fast_only() makes this
> > > abundantly clear both at the callsite and in the implementation.
> >
> > Partially agreed.  We don't need a dedicated mmu_notifier API to achieve that
> > for the callsites, e.g. ptep_clear_young_notify() passes fast_only=false, and a
> > new ptep_clear_young_notify_fast_only() does the obvious.
> >
> > On the back end, odds are very good KVM is going to squish the "fast" and "slow"
> > paths back into a common helper, so IMO having dedicated fast_only() APIs for the
> > mmu_notifier hooks doesn't add much value in the end.
> >
> > I'm not opposed to dedicated hooks, but I after poking around a bit, I suspect
> > that passing a fast_only flag will end up being less cleaner for all parties.
>
> Yeah, I think I'm headed in the same direction after actually reading
> the MM side of this, heh.

Yeah, I agree. What I have now for v6 is that the test_young() and
clear_young() notifiers themselves now take a `bool fast_only`. When
called with the existing helpers (e.g. `mmu_notifier_test_young()`,
`fast_only` is false, and I have new helpers (e.g.
`mmu_notifier_test_young_fast_only()`) that will set `fast_only` to
true. Seems clean to me. Thanks!