[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170823170443.GD12567@leverpostej>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 18:04:43 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Marco Benatto <marco.antonio.780@...il.com>,
Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] arm64: Add __flush_tlb_one()
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> > directly?
>
> So it turns out that there is a difference between __flush_tlb_one() and
> flush_tlb_kernel_range() on x86: flush_tlb_kernel_range() flushes all the TLBs
> via on_each_cpu(), where as __flush_tlb_one() only flushes the local TLB (which
> I think is enough here).
That sounds suspicious; I don't think that __flush_tlb_one() is
sufficient.
If you only do local TLB maintenance, then the page is left accessible
to other CPUs via the (stale) kernel mappings. i.e. the page isn't
exclusively mapped by userspace.
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
