|
Message-ID: <f1dfbfb4-d2d5-bf30-600f-9e756a352860@intel.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 09:20:53 -0700 From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> Cc: Marius Hillenbrand <mhillenb@...zon.de>, kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.de>, David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] Process-local memory allocations for hiding KVM secrets On 6/13/19 9:13 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> It might make sense to use it for kmap_atomic() for debug purposes, as >> it ensures that other users can no longer access the same mapping >> through the linear map. However, it does come at quite a big cost, as we >> need to shoot down the TLB of all other threads in the system. So I'm >> not sure it's of general value? > What I meant was that kmap_atomic() could use mm-local memory so that > it doesn't need to do a global shootdown. But I guess it's not > actually used for real on 64-bit, so this is mostly moot. Are you > planning to support mm-local on 32-bit? Do we *do* global shootdowns on kmap_atomic()s on 32-bit? I thought we used entirely per-cpu addresses, so a stale entry from another CPU can get loaded in the TLB speculatively but it won't ever actually get used. I think it goes: kunmap_atomic() -> __kunmap_atomic() -> kpte_clear_flush() -> __flush_tlb_one_kernel() -> __flush_tlb_one_user() -> __native_flush_tlb_one_user() -> invlpg The per-cpu address calculation is visible in kmap_atomic_prot(): idx = type + KM_TYPE_NR*smp_processor_id();
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.