kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v5 03/32] x86/cpa: In populate_pgd, don't set the pgd entry until it's populated

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160722201104.GA6613@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:11:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/32] x86/cpa: In populate_pgd,
 don't set the pgd entry until it's populated


* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> This garbage (as evidenced by my bug and my failed attempt to fix it)
> only works if you never have a low-level page table that isn't linked
> into a higher-level page table, and it mostly requires you to do
> everything exactly the way it was originally done so all the horrible
> inline helpers don't get confused.
> 
> And AFAICT all of this was done to manually unroll a loop, and I bet
> it never sped anything up measurably even on 386 or PPro.
> 
> Whenever some vendor releases a 5 level page table CPU, can we
> *please* clean this up first?  We should have a type that points to a
> table, a different type that points to an entry (or maybe not have
> pointers to entries at all), and the levels should be referred to by
> *number*.  When you need to traverse all the way down, you write a
> *loop* instead of four bloody helper functions, some of which are
> incomprehensibly no-ops on some kernels.  And if this means that, on
> Intel, we have a silly branch in the inner loop because the bottom
> level entry format is special, who cares?
> </rant>

I'd welcome (and help out!) any effort to clean it up gradually.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.