Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:11:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <>
To: Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <>,
	Valdis Kletnieks <>,
	"" <>,
	X86 ML <>,
	"" <>,
	linux-arch <>,
	Borislav Petkov <>, Nadav Amit <>,
	Kees Cook <>, Brian Gerst <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <>, Jann Horn <>,
	Heiko Carstens <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/32] x86/cpa: In populate_pgd,
 don't set the pgd entry until it's populated

* Andy Lutomirski <> 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.



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.