linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] mm: Add fast_only bool to test_young and clear

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: <20240807182611.GH8473@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 15:26:11 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.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>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, 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 v6 05/11] mm: Add fast_only bool to test_young and
 clear_young MMU notifiers

On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 08:02:26AM -0700, James Houghton wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 10:23 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 04:13:40PM -0700, James Houghton wrote:
> > > --- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> > > @@ -106,6 +106,18 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops {
> > >          * clear_young is a lightweight version of clear_flush_young. Like the
> > >          * latter, it is supposed to test-and-clear the young/accessed bitflag
> > >          * in the secondary pte, but it may omit flushing the secondary tlb.
> > > +        *
> > > +        * The fast_only parameter indicates that this call should not block,
> > > +        * and this function should not cause other MMU notifier calls to
> > > +        * block. Usually this means that the implementation should be
> > > +        * lockless.
> > > +        *
> > > +        * When called with fast_only, this notifier will be a no-op unless
> > > +        * has_fast_aging is set on the struct mmu_notifier.
> >
> > If you add a has_fast_aging I wonder if it is better to introduce new
> > ops instead? The semantics are a bit easier to explain that way
> 
> v5 implemented these with a new op[1]. *Just* having the new op is
> kind of problematic -- we have yet another op to do something very
> similar to what already exists. We are left with two options:
> consolidate everything into a single notifier[2] or add a new
> parameter to test/clear_young()[3]. The latter, implemented in this
> v6, is somewhat simpler to implement (fewer LoC, reduces some
> duplication in KVM), though it does indeed make the explanation for
> test/clear_young() slightly more complex. I don't feel very strongly,
> but unless you do, I think I just ought to stick with how the v6 does
> it. :)

If it does makes the code simpler then it is probably the better choice

Jason